Citation
Leadership behaviors among deans of students at public research universities in the Southeast

Material Information

Title:
Leadership behaviors among deans of students at public research universities in the Southeast
Creator:
Barth, Richard A
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
viii, 115 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College students ( jstor )
Higher education ( jstor )
Laissez faire ( jstor )
Leadership ( jstor )
Modeling ( jstor )
Professional relationships ( jstor )
Professionalism ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Regression analysis ( jstor )
Research universities ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations -- UF
Educational Leadership, Policy,and Foundations thesis, Ph. D
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2004.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Richard A. Barth.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
022435035 ( ALEPH )
847495555 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS AMONG DEANS OF STUDENTS AT PUBLIC
RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES IN THE SOUTHEAST

















By

RICHARD A. BARTH


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLM[IENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge my dissertation committee for their assistance during the

dissertation process. Dr. Arthur Sandeen, my advisor, sustained me in this effort,

showing patience and understanding above the call of duty. Dr. Wayne Griffin, my

outside committee member, consistently reminded me of the importance of maintaining

balance in my life while working on the dissertation and provided a tremendous amount

of emotional support throughout the long process. Dr. David Honeyman and Dr. Lamont

Flowers were instrumental in assisting me with deciding on the dissertation topic and

helping me design the study.

I also wish to acknowledge Dr. Mike Rollo, Dr. Julie Athman, and Dr. Mike

Mironack. As colleagues and friends they kept me focused on the dissertation and

provided me with the advice and motivation needed to complete the journey.

A special note of thanks goes to Ms. Evelyn Chiang, who shared her time, talent,

and energy to aid me as I completed the dissertation. I truly appreciate the time she spent

teaching me about statistics and analyzing my data. Most of all, I appreciate her

unwavering support and friendship over the past two years.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents, Alvin and Dolores

Barth. They made many sacrifices throughout their lives to allow me to pursue my

educational goals. Through their hard work and commitment to education, they have

provided me with opportunities that they never had themselves. I am very fortunate to

have them as my parents.


ii














TABLE OF CONTENTS
page

ACKNOWLEDGFMIENTS......................................................................... ii

LIST O F TA B LES.................................................................................... v

A B STRA C T .......................... ............................................... .... ............ vii

CHAPTER

I IN TR O D U C TIO N .............................................................................. 1

Statement of the Problem ..................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study.......................................................................... 8
Theoretical Background ...................................................................... 9
D definition of Term s........................................................................... 13
Delimitations and Assumptions............................................................ 18
Organization of the Study................................................................... 19

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................ 20

Definitions of Leadership ................................................................... 21
Theories of Leadership ....................................................................... 22
The Full Range of Leadership Model...................................................... 29
Research on Transformational Leadership................................................ 35
Contingencies and Limitations of the Full Range of Leadership Model............. 36
The Dean of Students........................................................................ 37

3 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 42

Research Population.......................................................................... 43
The Instrument ...................... ....................................... .................. 44
Reliability and Validity ..................................................................... 46
D ata C collection .................................. ..................................... ... .... 49
D ata A analysis ......................................... ................. ....................... 50
H um an Subjects ......................................... ............ ...... .................... 51

4 ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA....................................... 52

Survey R esponses............................................................................ 53








Response Rates.............................................. ... ........ ...................... 54
Demographic Information................................................................... 54
Research Question 1 ......................................................................... 55
R research Q question 2.......................................................................... 57
Research Question 3.......................................................................... 61
R research Q question 4.......................................................................... 65
R research Q question 5.......................................................................... 70
Sum m ary......................................... ............... ................. ............... 72

5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION......................................................... 74

Summary and Discussion of Findings...................................................... 75
Leadership Behaviors Exhibited by Deans of Students................................. 77
Leader Effectiveness as Measured by the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire................................................... 79
Satisfaction with the Leader as Measured by
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire............................................. 81
Willingness to Exert Extra Effort as Measured by
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire............................................ 84
Gender and Perception of Leadership Style............................................... 86
Implications for Student Affairs............................................................ 87
Recommendations for Future Research................................................... 89

APPENDIX

A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APROVAL.................................... 91

B MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE PERMISSION ............. 93

C INFORMATION LETTER FOR DEANS OF STUDENTS........................... 95

D INFORMATION LETTER FOR PARTICIPANTS..................................... 97

E INFORMED CONSENT FORM........................................................... 99

F DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARTICIPANTS..................... 101

G MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE ITEMS......... 103

REFERENCE LIST............................................................................... 105

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH..................................................................... 115














LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 Organizational Samples Used in Validation and Cross
Validation Analysis of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire..................... 47

3-2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among
M LQ Factor Scores........................................................................... 48

3-3 Comparison of Overall Fit Measures Among Several Factors Model................. 49

4-1 Summary of Respondents and Deans' Age Distribution................................ 55

4-2 Summary of Educational Level for Deans and Respondents........................... 55

4-3 Deans of Students: Leadership Behaviors................................................. 57

4-4 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Leader Effectiveness......................................................................... 59

4-5 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Leader
Effectiveness Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors........................ 61

4-6 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Leader Effectiveness............ 61

4-7 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Satisfaction with the Leader................................................................. 63

4-8 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Satisfaction
with the Leader Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors..................... 65

4-9 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Satisfaction
w ith the Leader...................................... ......... ...... ...... ..................... 65

4-10 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
W willingness to Exert Extra Effort........................................................... 68

4-11 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Willingness
to Exert Extra Effort Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors............... 69








4-12 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Willingness to
Exert Extra Effort............................................................................. 69














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy

LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS AMONG DEANS OF STUDENTS AT PUBLIC
RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES IN THE SOUTHEAST

By

Richard A. Barth

May 2004

Chair: C. Arthur Sandeen
Major Department: Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations

This study examined the leadership behaviors of deans of students at public

research universities in the southeast using Bass and Avolio's Full Range of Leadeship

Model. A sample (n = 96) of student affairs professional staff members working within

dean of students offices at 31 public research universities in the southeast completed the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5x-Short) to examine the relationship

between transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors of deans

of students and the outcome variables of satisfaction with the leader, perception of leader

effectiveness, and followers' willingness to exert extra effort.

SPSS and SAS statistical software programs were used to run multiple linear

regression analyses on the data. Deans of students exhibited transformational leadership

behaviors more frequently than they exhibited transactional behaviors, which they

exhibited more frequently than laissez-faire behavior. The transformational behavior of

idealized influence-attributed, the transactional leadership behavior of contingent reward,








and laissez-faire behavior were significant predictors at the p < .05 level for the outcome

variable of leader effectiveness. The transformational behaviors of idealized influence-

attributed and idealized influence-behavior, the transactional behavior of contingent

reward, and laissez-faire behavior were significant predictors at the p < .05 level for the

outcome variable of satisfaction with the leader. The transformational behaviors of

idealized influence-attributed, idealized influence-behavior, and individual consideration,

along with the transactional behavior of contingent reward and laissez-faire behavior,

were significant predictors at the p < .05 level for the outcome variable of willingness to

exert extra effort. Transformational leadership behaviors accounted for unique variance

in professional staff members' ratings of the outcome variables above that accounted for

by transactional and laissez-faire leadership. The findings support the theoretical

prediction of the Full Range of Leadership model that leaders who are more

transformational and less transactional are more effective as leaders and more satisfying

to their followers. There was no significant difference in how male and female deans of

students were rated overall by their professional staff members and there was no

significant difference in the way male and female professional staff members rated their

deans.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The federal government and the states began showing an interest in distinguishing

between public and private colleges soon after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution

(Rudolph, 1990; Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Several states established

nondenominational institutions between 1782 and 1820, beginning with Georgia, North

Carolina, Tennessee, and Vermont establishing state-chartered and state-supported

institutions before 1800 (Rudolph, 1990). The early enthusiasm for establishing state

institutions of higher education developed from the public's need for more democratic

and secular institutions that could be held accountable for fulfilling the needs and

objectives of the state (Rudolph, 1990). These initiatives indicated that higher education

was viewed as being essential to the public good and that state governments were

concerned about religiously governed private colleges dictating the national educational

agenda (Rudolph, 1990; Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).

This early push toward development of public higher education lost momentum in

the aftermath of the famous U.S. Supreme Court case, Trustees of Dartmouth College v.

Woodward, which gave privately incorporated colleges control over their own policies

and activities (Rudolph, 1990). Private colleges were created throughout the United

States after the Dartmouth decision and enjoyed unprecedented autonomy (Rudolph,

1990). Rudolph (1990) stated that the Dartmouth decision "discouraged the friends of

strong state-supported and state-controlled institutions;... by encouraging [private]









college funding and by discouraging public support for higher education, [Dartmouth]

probably helped to check the development of state universities for half a ceniun (p.

211).

While the attempts at establishing state institutions of higher education were

premature in terms of public acceptance and ready implementation at the beginning of the

19h century, the last half of the 19th century was a time when the country's industrialized

society was facing increasingly complex problems and deficiencies that would eventually

lead to the widespread development of public higher education (Rudolph, 1990;

Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). There was an increasing need for highly trained professionals

in areas such as engineering, agriculture, public health, forestry, and nursing, but the

professional schools of the modem university did not exist (Bonnen, 1998). There was

also a growing frustration with the perceived unresponsiveness of colleges, mostly

private, that were providing a classical education and were unwilling to address society's

changing needs (Bonnen, 1998). At the same time, a fear arose that the "American

dream" of unlimited opportunities was being threatened by industrialization and the

growing economic inequality it was causing. The lack of access to the skills and practical

education necessary for a better life was viewed as a serious threat to the survival of the

middle class (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Bonnen, 1998).

Part of the response to these concerns was the land-grant idea, which was

eventually expressed in the 1862 Morrill Land Grant Act and the second land-grant act of

1890 (Bonnen, 1998). The land-grant idea was to provide federal and state support for

the development of institutions of higher education devoted to science and education in

the service of society by (a) educating and training professionals for the increasingly








urban and industrial society; (b) providing broad access to education regardless of wealth

or social status; and (c) working to improve the welfare and social status of the farmers

and industrial workers (Bonnen, 1998).

The impact of the land-grant legislation was not felt immediately. At the

beginning of the 20'h century public higher education remained largely undeveloped

(Thelin, 1996). However, this began to change after 1900 when state universities

increasingly became a symbol of state pride. State legislators began recognizing that

universities could be of service to the state; therefore, they started supporting them

financially (Lucas, 1994; Thelin, 1996). Thelin (1996) observed that "applied research, a

utilitarian and comprehensive curriculum, not to mention the public appeal of spectator

sports and the availability of federal funds for such fields as agriculture and engineering

led to the growth and maturation of the state university" (p. 12).

During the period between World War I and World War II, the promise of the

Morrill Act began to be seen in the state universities of the West and Mid-West with

enrollments climbing to between fifteen and twenty-five thousand at some institutions

(Thelin, 1996). However, many of the current large state research universities were still

relatively small during this period and their curricular offerings were limited. At the

beginning of World War II, several state universities had enrollments of fewer than five

thousand students and graduate and doctoral programs were limited (Thelin, 1996;

Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).

After World War II, the convergence of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act and

the tremendous increase in government and foundation research grants available to

universities provided the driving force behind the incredible expansion that took place in









higher education at every level (Rudolph, 1990; Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Caple, 1998).

The period of growth from 1945 to 1970 in enrollments, university influence in society,

graduate and professional programs, and in construction of new state institutions has been

called higher education's "golden age" and a time that ushered in the modem state

research university (Thelin, 1996; Lucas, 1994; Rhodes, 2001). However, the 21st

century state research university, as well as the society it serves, has changed profoundly

from higher education's golden age.

The state university today as compared to 40 years ago is much larger, more

complex, and offers a much wider range of opportunity for disciplinary, or

interdisciplinary specialization (Keller, 1990; Altbach, 2001). Its faculty and student

body are more characterized by involvement in graduate work, research, upper division

and professional education (Balderston, 1995; Rhodes, 2001). Large state research

universities have become national and international in their teaching, research, and some

public service areas (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Rhodes, 2001). They serve as the

foundation for the public college and university system that enrolls 78 percent of all

students and 81 percent of undergraduate students (Neimark, 1999).

The modern state research university finds itself in what Altbach (2001)

categorized as a "curious paradox" (p. 11). Along with its private counterpart, the state

research university is part of a system of higher education that is considered the best in

the world (Altbach, 2001). In writing about both the private and the public American

university, Rhodes (2001) stated:

It has been the foundation of growing national economic prosperity and
manufacturing success, vast improvements in the products of agriculture and
industry, and undreamed-of access to new means of communication;... [the
American university] has provided successive generations the opportunity for









meaningful careers, for service in a free society, and for access to the riches of
human experience, aspiration, and achievement;... it has trained the workforce,
enriched the individual experience, . enlightened public life,... quickened the
social conscience and empowered and inspired each rising generation. (p. 1)

Kerr (1991), in writing specifically about the strengths of the American higher education

system that emerged during the 1980s after a twenty-year period of major transformation,

stated:

Higher education met the test of action from 1960 to 1980 overall quite well, and
emerged from this period clearly larger and mostly better. In particular, it was
providing more services to more people in the American society than ever before.
It had, in many ways, been transformed, and, in the process, it had become a more
central aspect of the life of the nation and was, consequently in turn, a greater
potential source of transformation for the nation. (p. 376)

But despite the strengths of the American university and the overwhelming benefits it has

produced for society, it is facing unprecedented criticism (Altbach, 2001).

The public higher education system has been the target of harsh criticism for

being too expensive, inefficient, poorly managed, and for lacking performance criteria

(Neimark, 1999). Specifically, the research university has been consistently criticized for

failing to engage its undergraduate students in the teaching and learning process

(Blimling & Whitt, 1999: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant

Colleges [NASULGC], 2001). By encountering this criticism at a time when the

landscape of higher education is changing rapidly, the state research university faces a

tremendous challenge in forging a new path to regain public confidence. Strong and

effective leadership at every level of the university is a critical element of meeting this

challenge (Lucas, 2000; Blimling & Whitt, 1999; Boudreau, 1998).









Statement of the Problem

Institutions of higher education currently face a landscape that is changing at an

unprecedented rate (Lucas, 2000; Blimling & Whitt. 1999). Along with the challenge of

this constant change, public institutions find themselves confronting both a decrease in

public confidence and an increase of external criticism over their perceived failure to

actively engage students in the teaching and learning process (Blimling & Whitt, 1999;

NASULGC, 2001). In addressing the criticism questioning the responsiveness and

relevance of public institutions, reports such as Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A

Blueprint for America's Research Universities (The Boyer Commission on Educating

Undergraduates in the Research University [Boyer Commission], 1998) and Returning to

Our Roots: The Student Experience, by the Kellogg Commission (NASULGC, 1997)

emphasize the need for institutions to change the way they engage their undergraduate

student population by making undergraduates and their learning a higher priority.

In calling research universities' record of educating undergraduates one of failure,

the Boyer Commission (1998) stated:

In a context of increasing stress declining governmental support, increased
costs, mounting outside criticism, and growing consumerism from students and
their families universities too often continue to behave with complacency,
indifference, or forgetfulness toward that constituency whose support is vital to
the academic enterprise. Baccalaureate students are the second-class citizens who
are allowed to pay taxes but are barred from voting, the guests at the banquet who
pay their share of the tab but are given leftovers. (p. 37)

This criticism is not new, as scholars and commentators, such as Ernest Boyer and Page

Smith, have called for reform in undergraduate education for many years (Boyer, 1990;

Smith, 1990; Boudreau, 1998). But the criticism has intensified as higher education has









been slow to change and public trust continues to erode (Boudreau, 1998; NASULGC,

1997).

Observers of American higher education have written extensively on the role that

leaders in academic affairs must play in addressing the challenges higher education faces

and implementing the necessary changes. However, these writers address the issues

facing higher education while giving little or no attention to the role student affairs

leaders can or should play in assisting an institution with making undergraduate

education the first priority (e.g., Lucas, 2000; Balderston, 1995; Peterson, Dill, & Mets,

1997). Boudreau (1998) in his book, Universitas: The Social Restructuring ofAmerican

Undergraduate Education, fails to mention student affairs and the role it plays on campus

even when addressing the issue of students' drug and alcohol use impacting the

classroom experience. Surprisingly, the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and

Land-Grant Universities in its Returning to Our Roots series of reports fails to

specifically or clearly address the critical role student affairs may play in the lives of

students (NASULGC, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001).

While some commentators and reform reports have failed to stress the important

role student affairs must play in addressing the changing environment of higher

education, others have clearly recognized this role. Boyer (1987) devotes an entire

section of his book, College: The Undergraduate Experience in America, to life outside

of the classroom and states that the "college of quality remains a place where the

curricular and cocurricular are viewed as having a relationship to each other" (p. 195).

Schroeder (1999) stresses that in responding to the pressure for improved undergraduate








education, academic personnel and student affairs personnel must work together to create

effective learning environments.

For public research universities that employ the dean of students title, the dean of

students is in a key leadership position to assist the institution in creating a seamless

learning environment for undergraduate students and making undergraduate education a

top priority. The dean of students often oversees several of the common functions found

in a student affairs division, holds the "primary educational role within student affairs,"

and "has assumed the rather undefined but significant role of 'conscience of the campus'"

(Sandeen, 1996, p. 444).

A review of the literature in student affairs, including a search of published

dissertations, revealed no empirical studies conducted on the leadership behavior of deans

of students at public research universities. Overall, the contemporary dean of students

has received minimal scholarly attention in the literature (Robillard, 2000). As a result of

the lack of a research base, little is known about the leadership behavior of deans of

students and its relationship to the professional staff members' perceptions of the

effectiveness of this behavior. This presents a significant gap in student affairs research

since the dean of students plays a major role in the student life program (Ambler, 1993)

and is responsible for many of the common student affairs functions (Sandeen, 1996).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership behaviors of deans of

students at public research universities in the southeast using Bass and Avolio's (1997)

Full Range of Leadership model. The study investigated the relationship between

transformational, transactional, and laissez-fair leadership behaviors of the deans and the








outcome variables of subordinate satisfaction with the leader, subordinate perception of

leadership effectiveness, and subordinate willingness to exert extra effort.

Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:

1. To what extent do deans of students exhibit transformational, transactional, and
laissez-fair leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?

2. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' perception of leader
effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater
Form (5X-Short)?

3. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' satisfaction with
their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?

4. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' willingness to exert
extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?

5. Is there a relationship between gender and the transformational leadership
behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership
behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?

Theoretical Background

Leaders in public institutions face the challenge of how to lead at a time when

conditions are changing, public confidence is low, resources are tight, and options are

limited (NASULGC, 1997). Blimling and Whitt (1999) state that doing things the way

they have always been done is not an appropriate response for student affairs during this

period of reform in higher education. In facing the current challenges, there is a need for

visionary leadership within student affairs (Rogers, 1996). The authors of the report,








Returning to Our Roots: The Student Experience, state, "We live in an age of

transformational not technical change. Our leadership, like our institutions, must become

transformational as well" (NASULGC, 1997, p. 21). Therefore, transformational

leadership theory is particularly applicable to the contemporary dean of students' role

within the institution.

Transformational leadership was first distinguished from transactional leadership

by Dowton (1973). However, it was the work of Bums (1978) that first drew major

attention to the ideas associated with transformational leadership (Leithwood, Tomlinson,

& Genge, 1996). Burns (1978) conceptualized two factors, transactional and

transformational, to differentiate ordinary from extraordinary leadership. Transactional

(ordinary) leadership is based on an exchange relationship in which follower compliance

(effort. productivity, and loyalty) is exchanged for expected rewards. Transformational

(extraordinary) leaders raise followers' consciousness levels about the importance and

value of designated outcomes and ways of achieving them. They also motivate followers

to transcend their own immediate self-interest for the sake of the mission and vision of

the organization. Followers' confidence levels are raised and their needs broadened by

the leader to support their development to higher potential. Such total engagement

(emotional, intellectual and moral) encourages followers to develop and perform beyond

expectations (Bums, 1978; Bass, 1985; Sergiovanni, 1991).

Bass (1985) operationalized the work of Bums (1978) by developing a model of

transformational and transactional leadership that he later revised with Bruce Avolio and

that is now referred to as the Full Range of Leadership model (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

The model identifies four distinct transformational leadership behavior constructs:








idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized

consideration. Three behavioral constructs identify transactional leadership: contingent

reward, management-by-exception active, and management-by-exception passive. The

model also includes a leadership behavior referred to as laissez-faire leadership, the most

inactive form of leadership where a leader chooses not to guide performance when the

situation would warrant guidance (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Bass is credited as being the

first researcher to operationalize a transformational leadership model into a measurement

instrument by his development of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Chemers,

1997; Conger. 1989).

Bass' (1985) conception of transformational leadership and transactional

leadership contrasts with that of Burns (1978) who considered transformational and

transactional leadership practices as opposite ends of a continuum. Bass (1985) contends

that most leaders display transformational and transactional leadership in varying

degrees. Transformational leadership augments transactional leadership. Transactional

practices on their own do little to bring about the enhanced commitment and extra effort

required for the positive change that will occur when the members of an organization

experience transformational leadership (Leithwood et al., 1996).

Bass and Avolio (1997), in establishing the reliability and validity of the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire as an instrument that can measure transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors as defined by their Full Range of

Leadership model, utilized a validation samples set and a cross-validation samples set.

The validation samples were collected from several different types of organizational

settings including military, business, political, non-profit, educational, and public service








organizations (Bass & Avolio, 1997). The only connection any of the samples in the sets

had to higher education was the use of undergraduate students and the evaluation of

leaders in nursing schools. The samples did not include any studies using student affairs

practitioners at public research universities.

While research has shown transformational leadership behaviors to be

significantly and positively related to outcomes of willingness of followers to exert extra

effort, a perception that the leader's leadership behavior is effective, and an overall sense

of satisfaction with the leader on the part of the followers (Bass, 1985; Seltzer & Bass,

1990; Bass & Avolio, 1997; Bass 1998), the population sample for the current study may

differ from the validation samples in ways that may weaken or enhance the relationships

between leader behaviors and subordinate criterion variables. Researchers have noted

that variables related to subordinate, task, and organizational characteristics can serve to

weaken, neutralize or enhance the relationships between particular leader behaviors and

subordinate criterion variables (Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986).

Therefore, in evaluating the leadership behaviors of deans of students through the

extension of Bass and Avolio's (1997) Full Range of Leadership model to student affair

practitioners, the issue of what evidence exists to suggest the theory is applicable to the

current study's population arises. This issue is important since the current study is

extending the theory to a new population as opposed to testing the theory itself. The

evidence supporting the extension of the theory to student affairs practitioners comes

from Bass' (1998) review of the research on transformational leadership over a wide

range of organizational types and settings.









Bass (1998), in recognizing that variables related to subordinate, task, and

organizational characteristics can affect the relationships between particular leader

behaviors and subordinate criterion variables, stated that situational contingencies do

make a difference. However, Bass (1998) noted that over fifteen years of research

indicates that situational contingencies do not override the general finding that

transformational leadership behaviors are significantly and positively related to outcomes

of willingness of followers to exert extra effort, a perception that the leader's leadership

behavior is effective, and an overall sense of satisfaction with the leader on the part of the

followers. Bass (1998) argues that research has indicated that transformational leadership

is more effective than constructive transactions, which are more effective than corrective

transactions, regardless of situational contingencies.

This study investigated whether deans of students at public research universities

in the southeast exhibit transformational leadership behaviors, and if so, whether this

leadership style enhanced employee perceptions of extra effort, leadership effectiveness,

and follower satisfaction with leaders' methods.

Definition of Terms

Specific terms used in this study are defined below.

Contingent Reward

Contingent reward is a transactional leadership behavior that rewards followers

for attaining specific performance levels. The leader utilizes primarily extrinsic

motivators to reward followers contingent upon effort and performance level achieved.








Dean of Students

The dean of students is a full-time student affairs professional who performs

supervisory and managerial activities within the division of student affairs and who is not

the chief student affairs officer. The dean of students is responsible for several of the

student affairs functions found on university campuses (Sandeen, 1996). Deans of

students generally report directly to the chief student affairs officer with the title vice

president or vice chancellor (Ambler, 1993). Other titles used for individuals having the

responsibilities of the dean of students are director of student life and dean of student life.

For the purpose of this study, the title dean of students will be used to represent those

persons holding the position of dean of students, director of student life, or dean of

student life.

Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive

Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive are institutions that typically offer a

wide range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through

the doctorate. They award 50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15

disciplines (Carnegie Foundation, 2000).

Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive

Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive are institutions that typically offer a

wide range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through

the doctorate. They award at least ten doctoral degrees per year across three or more

disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall (Carnegie Foundation, 2000).








Effectiveness

Effectiveness refers to a leader's ability to meet the job-related needs of the

followers and promote productivity within the department. This capacity also includes

the leader's ability to make contributions to the entire organization while representing the

follower's interests to the senior leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1995).

Full Range of Leadership Model

The Full Range of Leadership model is a leadership model proposed by Bass and

Avolio (1997) developed from Bass' (1985) transformational leadership theory. It

includes elements of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-

faire or non-leadership behaviors.

Idealized Influence

Idealized influence is a leadership behavior that result in leaders as role models.

These leaders are seen as courageous, visionary, value driven and as change agents.

They are admired, respected and trusted. Here the leader is viewed as having high moral

standards and uses power only when necessary. This leader provides consistency and is

seen as a risk taker (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Individualized Consideration

Individualized consideration is a leadership behavior that significantly contributes

to the subordinates achieving their fullest potential (Bass, 1998). Leaders that exhibit this

behavior develop subordinates through coaching, mentoring, and providing feedback

(Bass & Avolio, 1994).









Inspirational Motivation

Inspirational motivation is leadership that excites, arouses and inspires

subordinates in ways that increase optimism and pride (Bass, 1985, 1998). Inspirational

motivation provides meaning and challenge in the follower's work. Followers are

involved in the creation of new futures through a shared vision. Expectations are clearly

communicated in such a way that followers are committed to jointly developed goals

(Bass & Avolio. 1994).

Intellectual Stimulation

Intellectual stimulation is a leadership behavior that encourages followers to

analyze problems and seek out innovative solutions. The leader that utilizes intellectual

stimulation provides subordinates with challenging new ideas and stimulates thinking in

new ways (Bass. 1985).

Laissez-Faire Leadership

Laissez-faire leadership is the most extreme form of passive leadership,

considered to be non-leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994). The leader avoids making

decisions and is inactive rather than reactive or proactive. The leader evades getting

involved when important issues arise and fails to provide assistance when requested. The

leader is not motivated or adequately skilled to perform duties (Bass, 1998).

Management-by-Exception (Active)

Management-by-exception (active) is a contingent reinforcement behavior in

which the leader actively seeks deviations from standards and takes actions when

irregularities occur (Bass & Avolio, 1994). The leader shuns giving directions if old









ways work and the followers continue to work in familiar patterns as long as performance

goals are met (Hater & Bass, 1988).

Management-by-Exception (Passive)

Management-by-exception (passive) is a leadership behavior in which the leader

only takes actions after deviations and irregularities are evident (Hartog, van Muijen, &

Koopman, 1997). The leader waits for problems to materialize prior to any intervention

(Hater & Bass, 1988).

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is a measurement instrument

developed by Bass and associates to identify and measure (a) the framework of

leadership factors included in Bass and Avolio's Full Range of Leadership Development

model, and (b) a set of three leadership outcomes (follower extra effort, leader

effectiveness, follower satisfaction with the leader's methods) that occur as a result of

leader behavior (Bass & Avolio, 1997).

Professional Staff

Professional staff are fulltime student affairs practitioners who have responsibility

for one or more outside-the-classroom services or programs at a post-secondary

institution. Professional staff typically have at least a master's degree in student affairs,

counseling, or higher education administration and are a member of a professional

association related to student affairs (Winston & Miller, 1991).

Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership is leadership based on the exchange between leader and

follower (Burns, 1978). It is implemented through a series of implicit bargains in which









the leader offers incentives and rewards in exchange for satisfaction of lower order needs

(Bass, 1985).

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership is leadership based on mutual stimulation and shared

vision, going beyond self-interest exchanges (Bass, 1985, 1998). Transformational

leaders broaden and elevate the interest of followers and have a transforming effect.

They motivate their followers and seek to fulfill their higher order needs (Bass, 1985).

Delimitations and Assumptions

For the purpose of this study, the following delimitations, limitations, and

assumptions apply:

Delimitations

1. This study is delimited to deans of students at public research universities that
(a) are classified as either Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive or
Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive by the 2000 Carnegie Classification
(Carnegie Foundation. 2000), (b) employ the dean of students title to
recognize a student affairs professional staff member that is not the chief
student affairs officer, and (c) are located in the Southeastern states of
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Therefore, it is not
intended to be reflective of the leadership profiles of deans of students at
large.

2. The study is delimited to the leadership factors developed by Bass (1998) of
Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation,
Individualized Consideration, Contingent Reward, Management-by-
Exception, and Laissez-Faire.

3. This study will examine the perceptions of subordinates of deans of students
regarding transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership
behaviors. It will not examine the perceptions of deans of students' peers or
supervisors.








Limitations

1. The sample composite of deans of students from public research universities
might not be representative of deans of students as a whole.

2. The subordinates who participate in this study might respond to the MLQ as
they believe they should and not answer truthfully.

3. The study will utilize only one measurement of leadership style, the MLQ
Short Form 5x.

Assumptions

1. Professional staff members within a dean of students office are able to identify
leadership qualities based on their perceptions of the dean's effectiveness.

2. Professional staff members within a dean of students office are able to
evaluate their satisfaction with the dean.

3. Professional staff members within a dean of students office are able to
evaluate their willingness to exert extra effort.

4. All subjects responded truthfully and accurately.

Organization of the Study

This study comprises five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the study's justification,

its purpose, the problem that it addressed, and the research questions that were tested. In

chapter 2, pertinent literature is reviewed with a focus on leadership theory,

transformational leadership, and information on the development and use of the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. This chapter also contains a review of the history

of the student affairs dean. Chapter 3 describes the method that was used for answering

the research questions. Chapter 4 presents the results of the statistical analyses that were

used to answer the research questions. Chapter 5 provides the overall findings of the

study, conclusions drawn from the statistical analyses, implications of the results, and

recommendations for future research.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership behaviors of deans of

students at public research universities in the southeast using Bass and Avolio's (1997)

Full Range of Leadership model. The study will investigate the relationship between

transformational, transactional, and laissez-fair leadership behaviors of the deans and the

outcome variables of subordinate satisfaction with the leader, subordinate perception of

leadership effectiveness, and subordinate willingness to exert extra effort.

Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:

1. To what extent do deans of students exhibit transformational, transactional, and
laissez-fair leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?

2. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' perception of leader
effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater
Form (5X-Short)?

3. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' satisfaction with
their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?

4. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' willingness to exert
extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?

5. Is there a relationship between gender and the transformational leadership
behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership








behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?

Definitions of Leadership

The perceived importance of leadership is evidenced by the volumes of

publications published on the topic. While there are numerous definitions of leadership,

influencing others is a common theme of the definitions. Hilgert and Haimann (1991)

defined leadership simply as "the ability to guide and influence the opinions, attitudes,

and behavior of others" (pp. 16-17). Gulley (1960) proposed that leadership is

"influencing others within a particular situation and social context in a way that induces

them to follow, be modified, or to be directed" (p. 174).

Other definitions explicitly state that leadership is goal directed. Kreitner and

Kinicki (1995) stated that leadership is "influencing employees to voluntarily pursue

organizational goals" (p. 428). Stogdill (1974) defined leadership as "the process of

influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and goal

achievement" (p. 57). Nahavandi's (1997) and Dessler's (1995) definitions of a leader

strongly support the idea that leadership is goal directed. Nahavandi (1997) defined a

leader "as any person who influences individuals and groups within an organization,

helps them in the establishment of goals, and guides them toward achievement of those

goals, thereby allowing them to be effective" (p. 4). Dessler (1995) stated "leadership

occurs whenever one person influences another to work toward some predetermined

objective" (p. 364).

Jago (1982) defined leadership in terms of both process and property:

The process of leadership is the use of non-coercive influence to direct and
coordinate the activities of the members of an organized group toward the
accomplishment of group objectives. As a property, leadership is the set








of qualities or characteristics attributed to those who are perceived to
successfully employ such influence. (p. 315)

These definitions imply that anyone who is able to influence others toward

objectives can be considered a leader. However, formal leadership is tied to a

hierarchical position. Yukl (1994) used the term leader "to refer to people who occupy

positions in which they are expected to exert leadership" (p. 5). This was supported by

Nahavandi (1997) stating "the presence of leaders often assumes some form of hierarchy

within a group" (p. 4).

Theories of Leadership

Although leadership has been the subject of debate, examination, and

investigation for thousands of years, it has only been a topic of continuous formal

analysis by scholars for the last 100 years with several of the leadership theories being

developed in the past 50 years. The leadership theories and research can be classified as

trait, behavioral, situational, and transformational approaches. The evolution of

leadership theories and leadership research can be seen by reviewing these major

categories.

Trait Theories

Many of the earliest leadership investigations centered on identifying and

measuring the specific personal characteristics of leaders based on the assumption that

great leaders are born, not made (Megginson, Mosley, & Peitri, 1989; Kreitner & Kinicki,

1995). This approach is commonly referred to as the trait theory of leadership and it

dominated the study of leadership during the first half of the twentieth century. Studies

employing the trait approach attempted to identify distinctive physical or psychological

characteristics related to leadership behavior. The majority of these studies compared








leaders with non-leaders to identify differences that existed with respect to their physical

characteristics, personalities, and abilities (Yukl, 1989).

Prior to World War II, hundreds of leadership trait studies were conducted

identifying dozens of leadership traits (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995). Stogdill (1948)

reviewed and synthesized the results of over 120 of these studies and came to the

conclusion that no specific traits or personal characteristics stood out as certain, or even

strong, indicators of leadership. Stogdill's findings brought criticism to the trait theories

and initiated a shift from focusing on traits to focusing on the behavior of leaders

(Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995).

Behavioral Theories

During World War II, as both a reaction to the criticism of trait research and the

burgeoning human relations movement, behavioral theories of leadership began to

emerge (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995). The concept behind behavioral leadership theory is

that group effectiveness is directly affected by leader behavior. Studies in this area focus

on identifying patterns of behavior often referred to as leadership styles that enable

leaders to effectively influence others (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995).

The studies conducted by Lewin and his associates (Lewin, Lippit, & White,

1939) in the 1930s are considered the precursor to the behavioral approach (Daft, 1999).

Lewin et al. (1939) identified the styles of leadership as autocratic, democratic, and

laissez-faire. According to Daft (1999), "an autocratic leader is one who tends to

centralize authority and derive power from position, control of rewards, and coercion. A

democratic leader delegates authority to others, encourages participation, relies on

subordinates' knowledge for completion of tasks, and depends on subordinate respect for








influence" (p. 69). A laissez-faire leader is permissive and allows followers to do what

they want with minimum direction or discipline (Megginson et al., 1989).

Lewin et al. (1939) concluded that the democratic leadership style was the most

productive of the three. Work continued in the democratic environment when the leader

was not present implying group cohesiveness and motivation. The lowest productivity

was found with the laissez-faire environment in which worker frustration was high.

Work proceeded intensely in the autocratic environment as long as the leader was

present. However, work stopped when the leader was not present and worker aggression

was prevalent in this environment.

Two of the better-known behavioral leadership studies are the Ohio State Studies

and the Michigan Studies. These studies, like most of the behavioral studies, focused on

identifying the leader's orientation toward the employee, the task to be completed, or a

combination of the two (Megginson et al, 1989).

In studies conducted mostly in factories, researchers at Ohio State University

identified two types, or two dimensions, of behavior on the part of supervisors: "initiating

structure" and "consideration" (Daft, 1999). Consideration is an employee relation

oriented type that is identified by characteristics such as being friendly, considerate,

supportive, open and consultative. Leader behavior focuses on a concern for employees'

needs and the leader strives to create an environment of mutual respect and trust (Daft,

1999). Initiating structure types are task oriented and are prone to be directive, to

coordinate, to plan and to problem solve. Leader behavior focuses on defining and

organizing what employees should be doing to maximize output (Kreitner & Kinicki,

1995). The Ohio State researchers found that the best results were obtained when leaders








engaged in high levels of both task-focused and relationship-centered behavior (Daft,

1999).

The University of Michigan studies compared the behavior of effective leaders

with ineffective leaders. The Michigan researchers developed two types of leadership

behavior termed employee-centered and job-centered (Daft, 1999). The employee-

centered leader focuses on the needs of the followers and stresses interaction and support.

The job-centered leader directs activities toward efficiency by focusing on reaching task

goals and facilitating the structure of the work tasks (Daft, 1999). The employee-

centered and job-centered styles of leadership roughly correspond to the Ohio State

Studies' concepts of consideration and initiating structure respectively. However, unlike

the Ohio State studies, the researchers at Michigan considered the two leadership styles to

be distinct, with a leader being one or the other, but not both (Daft, 1999). The Michigan

researchers findings indicated that employee-centered leaders were more productive than

job-centered leaders (Megginson et al., 1989).

The findings of behavioral studies such as the Ohio State and Michigan studies

have been questioned and criticized by other researchers (Daft, 1999; Kreitner & Kinicki,

1995). The criticism has included references to later research indicating that styles other

than the ones considered optimal by the studies can be effective (Kreitner & Kinicki,

1995; Daft, 1999). Other critics have pointed out that while "it is relatively easy to call

certain behaviors of leaders effective once the desired outcomes have been observed, it is

much more difficult to stipulate in advance the behavior of leaders that result in the

desired outcomes" (Bensimon, Neuman, & Birnbaum 1989, p. 14).









Situational Theories

The limitations of trait and behavioral theories led researchers to explore a new

direction in leadership study. The new focus was on the situation in which leadership

occurred (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). The concept behind situational or contingency

leadership theories is that leader effectiveness does not depend on who the leader is or on

the leader exhibiting a high degree of certain behaviors. Instead, effective leadership is

based on engaging in different combinations of task and relationship behavior in different

situations. The appropriate style of leadership to be used depends on the situation, the

people, the organization, or other environmental factors (Megginson et al, 1989).

Research conducted by Fiedler (1974), McGregor (1960), Mannheim, Rim and

Grinberg (1967), and Hunt and Liebscher (1973) concluded that work settings that vary

in task structure and climate foster differential leader behavior. Vroom and Yetton (1973)

proposed that it is the leader's decision making behavior that affects group performance.

According to their approach the effectiveness of a decision making procedure depends on

aspects of the situation such as the likelihood that followers will cooperate if allowed to

participate in the decision making process.

One of the most widely cited situational approaches is Hersey and Blanchard's

situational leadership theory. Hersey and Blanchard (1977, 1988) postulated a model that

identifies the readiness level of the followers and links it to the willingness and ability of

the followers to achieve the goals of the organization. Situational leadership theory takes

into consideration the followers' developmental level in order to determine the leader's

approach to accomplishing tasks. There are four categories of leader task and

relationship behavior for this model: (a) high task/low relationship, in which actions are








initiated and decisions made by the leader; (b) high task/high relationship, wherein the

leader provides a considerable amount of direction but also listens to input from

followers; (c) low task/high relationship, which incorporates a shift in problem-solving

from the leader to the followers; and (d) low relationship/low task which results in almost

total delegation of decision making to followers. The appropriate category of leader

behavior is based upon the follower's readiness level as it relates to the task to be

accomplished (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). Therefore, this model requires a high degree

of discernment on the part of leaders.

Situational leadership theory has been heavily criticized. The major criticism is

that the model lacks a sound theoretical foundation for the hypothesized relationships

among variables (Graeff, 1997). Other researchers have criticized the model by stating

that leader use of supportive behavior is an important contribution to effective leadership

at all levels of subordinate readiness (Goodson, McGee, & Cashman, 1989).

Transformational Leadership

Burns (1978) conducted a comprehensive study of leadership and concluded that

all leadership could be classified as either transactional or transformational. He stated

that a leader-follower interaction that is transactional in nature has the leader offering a

reward for the expected valued response of the follower. Therefore, in transactional

leadership, motivation is achieved when the leader is able to appeal to the self-interest of

the followers. Incentives and rewards are used for influencing motivation. Beyond the

achievement of their related goals, both leader and follower experience no enduring

relationship (Burns, 1978). By contrast, transforming leadership moves to a level of

morality in that both leaders and followers so engage with one another that they raise









each other to a greater sense of purpose and to aspirations that are noble and transcending

(Burns, 1978). Burns' work led to the development of several new approaches to the

study of what is referred to as transformational leadership (Daft, 1999). The term is used

to contrast this new leadership with the older, transactional leadership approach.

Burns (1978) defined the transforming leader as one who "recognizes and exploits

an existing need or demand of a potential follower. But, beyond that, the transforming

leader looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages

the full person of the follower" (Burns, 1978, p. 4). Burns (1978) integrated Maslow's

(1954) theory of human needs and Kohlberg's (1981) theory of moral development to

build his definition of transforming leadership and to examine moral leadership, which he

views as "going beyond simply satisfying the follower's wants or desires to being

actually instrumental in producing the social change that will satisfy both the followers'

and leaders authentic needs" (p. 4).

Motivated by Burn's development of transformational leadership, Bass (1985)

sought to investigate what type of action or strategies leaders use in transforming

followers toward achieving organizational goals. He views the constructs of transactional

and transformational leadership as complementary. Therefore, transformational

leadership behaviors are likely to be ineffective in the absence of a transactional

relationship between leader and follower (Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim, 1987). According

to Bass (1985), transformational leadership augments transactional management to

achieve higher levels of follower performance with the primary difference residing in the

process by which the leader motivates followers and in the types of goals set. The ability








of transformational leaders to obtain performance beyond basic expectations of followers

has been labeled the "augmentation hypothesis" (Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990).

Bass (1985) viewed the transactional leader as one who operates within the

existing system, tends to avoid risk, focuses on time constraints and efficiency, and

prefers process over substance for maintaining control. The transactional leader fulfills

the needs of followers in exchange for performance that meets basic expectations. A

transactional leader is most likely to be effective in a predictable and stable environment

where measuring current performance against prior performance is the most successful

strategy (Bass, 1985, 1998).

Bass (1985) characterized the transformational leader as one who seeks new ways

of working, seeks opportunities in the face of risk, prefers effective answers to efficient

answers, and is less likely to support the status quo. The transformational leader attempts

to shape and create environmental circumstances as opposed to merely reacting to them

(Avolio & Bass, 1988). He or she will use transactional strategies when appropriate, but

will also motivate by appealing to followers' ideals and moral values and challenge them

to think about problems in new ways. The transformational leader raises the level of

intellectual awareness of the followers about the importance of valued outcomes and

motivates followers beyond their own self-interest for the sake of the organization (Bass,

1985).

The Full Range of Leadership Model

Bass (1985) operationalized the concept of transformational and transactional

leadership by developing a leadership behavior model that he later refined with Bruce

Avolio and is referred to as the Full Range of Leadership Model (Bass & Avolio, 1994;









Bass & Avolio, 1997; Bass, 1998). The Full Range of Leadership Model contains three

classifications of leadership processes: (a) transformational, (b) transactional, and (c)

laissez-faire or non-leadership behavior (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass, 1998). The model

predicts that leaders who are more transformational and less transactional are more

effective as leaders and more satisfying to their followers (Bass & Avolio, 1997).

Components of Transformational Leadership

The first set of leadership behaviors in the full range of leadership model

identifies four distinct transformational leadership behaviors, called the "Four I's":

idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized

consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1994, p. 3). According to Bass and Avolio (1994)

transformation leaders employ one or more of the "Four I's" to achieve better results than

leaders that only exhibit transactional behavior.

Idealized influence is a transformational leadership behavior that results in leaders

being role models for the individuals they are leading. It is characterized by the leader

putting the followers' needs above the leader's own personal needs, consistently

demonstrating high ethical standards, and using power only when necessary (Bass &

Avolio, 1994). Bass and Avolio (1997) divided idealized influence into idealized

influence-attributed and idealized influence-behavior. Idealized influence-attributed is

characterized by a leader who is risk-taker, makes followers feel good to be with him or

her, creates a sense of belongingness to the common cause, and cares about the interests

of the followers (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Idealized influence-behavior is characterized by

a leader who displays a high ethical and moral code, is a risk-taker, and has a strong

sense of mission (Bass, 1998).








Inspirational motivation is characterized by behaviors that provide meaning,

challenging goals, a sense of vision and mission, and belief that followers can reach goals

they may have originally thought too difficult to achieve. Optimism and enthusiasm are

expressed by the leader in getting followers to become engaged in envisioning attractive

future states (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Intellectual stimulation is characterized by leader behavior that questions

underlying assumptions, reframes problems, and finds creative solutions to difficult

problems. This behavior develops the potential for followers to solve problems in the

future and encourages creative thought (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1997).

Individual consideration is a transformational behavior that focuses on the growth

and development of each follower, providing them with new opportunities to learn, and

giving them personalized attention. The leader coaches, mentors, and teaches in an

attempt to help followers reach the established goals (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1997).

Components of Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership behavior is expressed by the rewarding or disciplining of

the follower depending on the adequacy of the follower's performance (Bass, 1998). The

model breaks transactional leadership into the two components of contingent reward and

management-by-exception.

Contingent reward is characterized by the leader stressing an exchange where the

-leader assigns or gets agreement on what needs to be done and promises rewards or

actually rewards others in exchange for satisfactorily carrying out the assignment" (Bass,

1998, p. 6). Reward is contingent upon the effort expended by the follower and

performance level achieved (Bass, 1998).








Management-by-exception is defined by Bass (1998) as a "corrective transaction"

and occurs when a leader intervenes to make a correction only when something has gone

wrong or a mistake has been made (p. 7). Management-by-exception can either be active

or passive. Management-by-exception active is characterized by the leader actively

watching for deviations from the norm, and taking action when irregularities occur (Bass

& Avolio, 1997). Management-by-exception passive is characterized by the leader

intervening only after a correction is needed. There is no active monitoring for deviations

from the norm (Bass & Avolio, 1997).

Laissez-Faire Leadership

Laissez-faire leadership is the third classification of leadership in the Full Range

of Leadership Model and was added to address behaviors that indicate a non-transaction

of leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Laissez-faire leadership is the most inactive form

of leadership and is characterized by the leader avoiding decisions and not using his or

her authority. Bass (1998) states that Laissez-Faire behavior is "the avoidance or absence

of leadership and is, by definition, most inactive, as well as the most ineffective

according to almost all research on style" (p. 7).

The Augmentation Effect of Transformational Leadership

The Full Range of Leadership Model predicts that transformational leadership

will add to the effectiveness of transactional leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997; Bass,

1998). Although effective leaders are both transformational and transactional, Bass

(1985, 1998) states that transformational leadership augments transactional leadership in

predicting leadership behavior effects on the outcome variables of subordinate

willingness to exert extra effort, perception of leader effectiveness, and satisfaction with








the leader. Specifically, the augmentation effect states that transformational leadership

behaviors should account for unique variance in followers' ratings of the outcome

variables over and above that accounted for by transactional leadership (Bass, 1998).

The Optimal Leader Profile

According to the Full Range of Leadership Model, every leader displays

transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors to some degree

(Bass, 1998). However, the leader with an optimal profile infrequently displays laissez-

faire leadership and displays successively higher frequencies of the transactional

behaviors of management-by-exception passive, management-by-exception active, and

contingent reward. The optimal leader profile displays the five transformational

leadership behaviors of idealized influence-attributed, idealized influence-behavior,

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration the

most frequently (Bass. 1998).

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

According to Chemers (1997), the research of Bass and his associates provided

the support that was needed for applying transformational leadership concepts to

complex, formal organizations. Both Chemers (1997) and Conger (1989) give Bass

credit for being the first researcher to operationalize a transformational leadership model

into a measurement instrument by his development of the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ).

Bass (1985) developed the MLQ to assess the leadership constructs of

transformational and transactional leadership explicated by his theory. The MLQ was

initially generated by exploratory methods and then tested in the field using factor








analysis (Bass, 1985). The MLQ has undergone several modifications to answer

criticisms about its validity and to be a better gauge of the full range of leadership

(Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995). The current form of the MLQ measures five

transformational leadership constructs, three transactional leadership constructs, and one

nonleadership construct. The nine scales are (a) idealized influence-attributed, (b)

idealized influence-behavior, (c) inspirational motivation, (d) intellectual stimulation, (e)

individualized consideration, (f) contingent reward, (g) management-by-exception

(active), (h) management-by-exception (passive), and (i) laissez-faire leadership (Avolio

et al, 1995). The first five scales refer to transformational leadership, the next three to

transactional leadership, and the last scale to nonleadership. The MLQ also measures

three outcomes of leadership: (a) extra effort of followers, (b) effectiveness of the leader,

and (c) follower satisfaction with the leader (Avolio et al, 1995).

The MLQ Hierarchy of Correlations

The Full Range of Leadership model predicts a hierarchy of correlations of the

MLQ components with the outcome variables of leader effectiveness, satisfaction with

the leader, and willingness to exert extra effort. The predicted hierarchy of correlations

states transformational behaviors will have higher correlations with the outcome variables

than contingent reward. Contingent reward will have higher correlations than

management-by-exception active, which will have higher correlations than management-

by-exception passive. Laissez-faire leadership will have the lowest correlations scores

(Bass & Avolio, 1997).








Research on Transformational Leadership

A review of the literature on transformational leadership indicates that it has a

consistent, reliable, and positive relationship to effectiveness measures, whether

organizationally based or subjectively determined as predicted by Bass (1985) in the

development of his theory. The empirical work on transformational leadership covers a

wide area, and applies the concepts in a number of different disciplines and settings.

Transformational leadership has been found to have a substantive and significant

relationship on organizational and group effectiveness (Avolio, Howell, & Sosik, 1999;

Avolio, Waldman, & Einstein, 1988; Barling, Weber, & Kelloway 1996; Geyer &

Steyrer, 1998; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Jung & Avolio, 1999; Lowe, Kroeck, &

Sivasubramaniam, 1996), and perception of performance of the leader (Hater & Bass,

1988; Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass, 1993). Lowe et al. (1996), in a meta-analysis of 39

studies, found that a strong relationship exists between the transformational scales and

leadership effectiveness measures using either organizationally determined criteria or the

MLQ. Bass, Waldman, Avolio, and Bebb (1987) found transformational leadership to

have a powerful modeling effect on followers and on the organizational culture.

Transformational leadership was found to be predictive of innovation and creativity

(Howell & Higgins, 1990; Keller, 1992; Sosik, 1997), positive work attitude and product

knowledge (Yammarino et al., 1997), and followers feeling empowered (Howell &

Higgins, 1990). Furthermore, transformational leadership is predictive of satisfaction

with the leader (Barling, Weber & Kelloway, 1996; Druskat, 1994; Howell & Frost,

1989; Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Ross & Offermann, 1997), follower commitment

(Yammarino et al., 1997), organizational commitment (Barling et al., 1996; Koh et al.,








1995), and organizational citizenship (Koh et al., 1995). It has also been found that

individuals can be trained to exhibit transformational leadership behavior (Avolio, 1999;

Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1997; Shea & Howell, 1999).

The large amount of research studies done on transformational leadership which

appear in a broad range of scholarly publications suggest that it is one of the most

important contemporary leadership topics. Overall, the amount of research on

transformational leadership that indicates it has a consistent, reliable and positive

relationship to effective measures is impressive. The following section analyzes possible

contingencies and limitations.

Contingencies and Limitations of the Full Range of Leadership Model

Transformational leadership theory is moderated by situational variables

including level of the leader, the leader's personality, type of organization, the

organizational environment, characteristics of the followers, and type of criterion used to

determine effectiveness (Bass, 1985; Lowe et al., 1996). Transformational leaders are

more likely to arise in times of crises or of major change, and in organic types of

organizations that are not highly structured with routine tasks and functions (Bass, 1985).

Bass (1998) states that organizational turbulence is a condition that often supports the

emergence of transformational leadership in contrast to transactional leadership, which

"is likely to emerge and be relatively effective when leaders face a stable, predictable

environment" (p. 52).

Bass (1985) speculated that the effectiveness of transformational leadership

behavior may be contingent on the type of tasks to be performed. For example, Bycio,

Hackett, and Allen (1995) found that transactional behaviors are very important in








situations where safety is a major concern. Bass (1998) has also stated that where safety

is a priority, management-by-exception active may play a more prominent role in

determining organizational effectiveness than it does in other situations.

In terms of differences between a leader's gender, Druskat (1994), Bass, Avolio,

and Atwater (1996), Carless (1998), and Bass (1998) noted that women tend to display

transformational behaviors more often than men. This is in contrast to a study by Maher

(1997) finding that there are no differences between men and women leaders in

displaying transformational behaviors. According to Bass (1998) the differences that

were found may be explained by the fact that women are socialized to display more

nurturing, caring and developmental behaviors than men, and these behaviors are

essential elements or transformational leadership. Maher (1997) argued that any potential

differences that may have been found may not be universal and can be attributed to

situational or contextual variables.

The Dean of Students

In 1870, Harvard's President Eliot appointed Professor Ephraim Gurney as the

first college dean (Rentz, 1996; Brubaker & Rudy, 1997; Caple, 1998). Although

Gurney's responsibilities remained primarily academic, he assumed responsibility for

student discipline previously handled by President Eliot. Twenty years later, Harvard

divided the dean's position into two offices essentially creating an academic dean and a

student affairs dean (Caple, 1998). An instructor of English, LeBaron Russell Briggs,

took on the nonacademic responsibilities related to students. For this reason, he is

generally considered the first dean of students (Rentz, 1996; Brubaker & Rudy, 1997;

Rhatigan, 2000). In his book about Dean Briggs, Brown (1926) wrote that Brigg's goals








for being dean included "(a) To help the student disciplined, and not merely to humiliate

him; (b) to make it easy for the faculty to do its work; and (c) to develop a sentiment

among the students which would render discipline less and less necessary" (p. 101). As

his position developed, Dean Briggs took on several responsibilities outside of discipline

including registration, student record keeping, assisting entering students, counseling

students, and monitoring extracurricular activity (Brown, 1926; Rentz, 1996; Brubaker &

Rudy, 1997).

By the early 1900s, the combination of increased student influence on

extracurricular activities and increasing enrollments resulted in institutions adding

personnel to take on the responsibilities related to student life outside of the classroom

(Leonard, 1956). As a result, the positions of dean of men and dean of women became

"mainstays of morality and decorum" (Dressel, 1981, p. 94). Deans of men and women

were responsible for many out-of-class services and activities. Among their functions

were student discipline, housing, counseling, advising, student governance and other

student organizations, career development, health, supervision of facilities and social

events, and parental and public relations (Cohen, 1998; Dinniman, 1977; Rentz, 1996).

Deans of women were expected to give special attention to supervising the female

student's social life, housing, health, and social hygiene (Dinniman, 1977).

Around the World War I period, student personnel professional associations

began to emerge as a result of student personnel deans traveling to neighboring campuses

to meet and discuss the common problems and issues they each faced (Dinniman, 1977;

Rentz, 1996). The deans of women formed the National Association of Deans of Women

in 1916, which later became the National Association for Women in Education. The








deans of men formed the National Association of Deans and Advisors of Men in 1919

(Fenske, 1989; Caple, 1998). The National Association of Deans and Advisors of Men

later became the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators while in 1924

members of the existing gender specific associations founded the American College

Personnel Association (Rentz, 1996). Denniman (1977) noted that the formation of the

professional organizations, publications on student personnel work, and the development

of training programs for deans of students, "were all indications of the deanship's

professionalization and growing influence in higher education" (p. 8).

After World War I, the student personnel movement experienced an expansion

driven by the acceptance and application of mental testing and counseling techniques

developed by the Army during the war (Fenske, 1989; Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Caple,

1998). As testing and counseling gained credibility as tools to help students, their use

became widespread. Employing counseling on a large scale offered the student personnel

movement a greater degree of professionalism while the development and use of new

pedagogical and psychological theories gave support to the functions of student personnel

work (Garland, 1985; Caple, 1998). The importance of students' non-cognitive needs in

their overall development was becoming increasingly recognized resulting in the

expanding and diversifying of student affairs functions on college and university

campuses (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Caple, 1998).

The period proceeding and just following World War II saw an increase in the

emphasis placed on student affairs functions (Caple, 1998; Rhatigan, 2000). The

philosophical basis for the student affairs profession was sharpened during this period by

the publication of the American Council on Education's 1937 and 1949 reports titled The








Student Personnel Point of View (Garland, 1985; Fenske, 1989; Rentz, 1996; Caple,

1998). The reports emphasized the philosophical basis for student personnel work and

provided the foundation and assumptions that many professionals believed to represent

the spirit of the profession (Garland, 1985; Rentz, 1996).

While the period after World War II was a time of expansion for student affairs as

a profession, Schwartz (1997) reports that it was not a good period for deans of women.

He argues that in the rush to return to normalcy and to reward men returning from the

war, the role women had played in the success of the student personnel movement was

largely ignored. While offices of the dean of men were often "expanded to become dean

for student personnel, dean of students, and vice-presidents for student personnel

services" deans of women "were given lesser positions, dismissed, or allowed to retire

quicil)" (Schwartz, 1997, p. 433).

From 1950 to 1972, the title "dean of students" was the most frequently used title

to designate the chief student affairs officer (CSAO). However, it was during this period

that a shift to the designation of "vice president" was emerging. By 1972, 18% of the

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators member institutions were

using the title of vice president to designate their CSAO (Crookston, 1974). The use of

the vice president title continued to increase through the 1970s and 1980s becoming the

preferred designation of the chief student affairs officer at public universities (Ambler,

1993). While the use of the dean of students title as designating the CSAO

fell from favor at public institutions, many public universities retained the title to

designate a major student affairs officer who has responsibility for many of the aspects of

student life and who reports directly to the CSAO (Ambler, 1993).








Sandeen (1996) reports that the contemporary dean of students is often

responsible for several of the traditional student affairs functions, responds to student

crises, enforces the institution's community standards, and "responds to the general

concerns of students, faculty, staff, parents, and community members" (p. 444). A

review of the web sites for National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant

Colleges member institutions in the Southeast that employ the dean of students title

indicate that the common student affairs functions that are supervised by the dean of

students include judicial affairs, Greek life, orientation and first-year programs,

leadership development, disability services, student organizations and activities, and

student government. Other functions that were not as common but were the

responsibility of several of the deans of students include withdrawals, parent programs,

service learning, international student services, housing and residence life, multicultural

affairs, and gender issues.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Kerlinger (1986) believed that a research design must encompass both the research

problem and the plan of investigation necessary to acquire empirical evidence on the

problem. While a design does not explain precisely what to do, it implies the direction of

observation and analysis. The purpose of this chapter is to present the research questions

that guided the study, the research population and sample that was studied, the instrument

that was employed, and the statistical analysis that were conducted.

The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership behaviors of deans of

students at public research universities in the southeast using Bass and Avolio's (1997)

Full Range of Leadership model. The study investigated the relationship between

transformational, transactional, and laissez-fair leadership behaviors of the deans and the

outcome variables of subordinate satisfaction with the leader, subordinate perception of

leadership effectiveness, and subordinate willingness to exert extra effort.

Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:

1. To what extent do deans of students exhibit transformational, transactional, and
laissez-fair leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?

2. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' perception of leader
effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater
Form (5X-Short)?

3. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans








of students and their subordinate professional staff members' satisfaction with
their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?

4. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' willingness to exert
extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?

5. Is there a relationship between gender and the transformational leadership
behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership
behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?

Research Population

The population for this study was student affairs professional staff members

supervised by deans of students at public institutions of higher education classified as

either Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive or Doctoral/Research Universities-

Intensive in the 2000 Carnegie Classification (Carnegie Foundation, 2000) located in the

southeastern states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The total number

of institutions representing this population is 45. Five institutions in this population did

not have an equivalent position to a dean of students for the purpose of this study and two

institutions had the position vacant at the time of the study. Therefore, 38 institutions

were used in the study.

The population for the study was primarily identified through the institutions' web

sites and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators' membership

directory. Institutions were contacted through e-mail and through telephone calls from

the researcher when information was not available through the institution's web site or

the membership directory.









The Instrument

The research instrument utilized in this study was the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1997). The MLQ was used to collect

data regarding the independent variables of transformational leadership, transactional

leadership, and laissez-faire leadership and the dependent variables of subordinate

perception of leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, and willingness to exert

extra effort.

The MLQ Form 5X was developed by Bass and Avolio to address the criticisms of

an earlier MLQ survey instrument designed by Bass (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Through the

use of confirmatory factor analysis, Avolio, Bass and Jung (1995) refined the original

MLQ into an instrument that better represented each leadership component within the

Full Range of Leadership model. Their findings from the validation and cross validation

studies resulted in the selection of the items for the MLQ Form 5X.

The MLQ Form 5X is a 45-item questionnaire using a Likert scale to measure leader

behaviors. Thirty-six of the items measure the independent variables of leadership

behaviors and nine items measure the dependent variables of outcome factors (Bass &

Avolio, 1997). The MLQ measures five transformational leadership components, three

transactional leadership components, and one nonleadership component. The

components for transformational leadership are: idealized influence-attributed, idealized

influence-behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized

consideration. The components for transactional leadership are: contingent reward,

management-by-exception-active and management-by-exception-passive. Laissez-faire

leadership is the nonleadership component (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Each of the








leadership components are measured by four interconnected items that are as low in

correlation as possible with items measuring the other eight components (Bass & Avolio,

1997). The items that measure the individual leadership components and outcome

behaviors are as follows:

Transformational Behaviors:

Idealized Influence-Attributed is measured by items 10, 18, 21, and 25.

Idealized Influence-Behavior is measured by items 6, 14, 23, and 34.

Inspirational Motivation is measured by items 13, 26, 36, and 9.

Intellectual Stimulation is measured by items 2, 8, 30, and 32.

Individual Consideration is measured by items 15. 19, 29, and 31.

Transactional Behaviors:

Contingent Reward is measured by items 1, 11, 16, and 35.

Management-by-Exception (Active) is measured by items 4, 22, 24, and 27.

Management-by-Exception (Passive) is measured by items 3, 12, 17, and 20.

Laissez-Faire (Nonleadership) Behaviors:

Laissez-Faire is measured by items 5, 7, 28, and 33.

Outcome Behaviors:

Willingness to Exert Extra Effort is measured by items 39, 42, and 44.

Leadership Effectiveness is measured by items 37, 40, 43, and 45.

Satisfaction with Leader is measured by items 38 and 41.

The MLQ requires a ninth grade reading ability and takes approximately 15 minutes

to complete. The respondents are asked to rate their supervisor, judging how frequently

each statement in the item fits the supervisor. Numerical values are given for each of the








item responses. The values are: 0 = Not at all, 1 = Once in a while, 2 = Sometimes, 3 =

Fairly often, 4 = Frequently, if not always. A lower score indicates that the leader's

behaviors were perceived to be inconsistent with the description of the leadership

component and a higher score is indicative of the perception of the presence of behaviors

consistent with the leadership component.

Participants were also asked to complete a researcher-developed demographic

information sheet. The demographic information sheet requested information on the

deans of students' gender, age, educational level, and number of years in current

leadership position. It also requested information on respondents' gender, age,

educational level, number of years in student affairs, and number of years working with

their current dean.

Reliability and Validity

In their instrument manual, Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Bass and Avolio (1997) summarized the results of

the tests employed for examining the MLQ 5X's construct validity and reliability. For

their study, Bass and Avolio (1997) used a validation sample and a cross-validation

sample. The sample studies for both the validation sample and the cross-validation

sample were conducted by independent researchers and were based on data generated by

subordinates who evaluated their supervisors within a broad range of organizations and at

varying levels within the organizations (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Table 3-1 gives a

description of the validation samples set and the cross-validation samples set.

The scale scores for both the validation and cross-validation sets of samples are

provided by Bass and Avolio (1997) and are presented in Table 3-2. Reliabilities for









Table 3-1 Organizational Samples Used in Validation and Cross Validation Analysis of
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Description of Validation Samples Description of Cross-Validation Samples
Set N Set N
1. Undergraduate Students 254 1. Business Organizations in U.S. 215
(American and Taiwanese)
2. Political Organization in U.S. 428
2. Undergraduate Students (American) 162
3. Business Organizations in U.S. 549
3. Nursing Schools in U.S. 45
4. Fire Department in U.S. 325
4. U.S. Government Research
Organization 66 5. Not-for-Profit Government
Organization 189
5. Business Organizations in U.S. 457

6. Business Organizations in U.S. 320

7. College Educators in Nursing
School in U.S. 475

8. U.S. Army Organization 202

9. Oil Platforms Offshore from
Scotland 99

Note. Reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, MIND GARDEN, Inc., 1690 Woodside Road
#202, Redwood City, CA 90461 USA www.mindgarden.com from the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire for Research by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J Avolio. Copyright 1995, 2000 by Bernard M
Bass and Bruce J Avolio. All rights reserved. Further reproduction is prohibited without Publisher's written
permission.

each of the leadership factors and the outcome scales range from .74 to .94 for the

validation sample and .73 to .93 in the cross validation sample (Bass & Avolio, 1997).

The scales' reliabilities are generally high, exceeding standard cut-offs for internal

consistency recommended in the literature (Alovio, Bass, & Jung, 1995).

Bass and Avolio (1997) used confirmatory factor analysis to test the convergent and

discriminant validity of the MLQ Form 5X scales. Bass and Avolio (1997) state that

the confirmatory factor analysis tests were specifically run to determine whether the data

collected from the validation and cross-validation sample sets confirmed the nine-factor

model proposed by Avolio and Bass (1991). Table 3-3 shows the comparison of the

Goodness of Fit (GFI), the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), the Root Mean










Square Residuals (RMSR), and the Chi-square test results. The fit measures and the chi-

square tests improved as the model progressed from a one-factor to a nine-factor solution

Table 3-2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among MLQ Factor Scores
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


1. Attributed 2.56 .84
Charisma 2.69 .90

2. Idealized 2.64 .85
Influence 2.71 .89

3. Inspirational 2.64 .87
Motivation 2.69 .91


.86
.87

.79
.83


.87
.89

.86 .91
.90 .91


4. Intellectual 2.51 .86
Stimulation 2.50 .86

5. Individualized 2.66 .93
Consideration 2.62 .94

6. Contingent 2.20 .89
Reward 2.04 .94

7. Management- 1.75 .77
by-Exception 1.71 .81
(Active)

8. Management- 1.11 .82
by-Exception 1.17 .88
(Passive)

9. Laissez-Faire 0.89 .74
0.99 .88


.84 .85 .90
.84 .85 .88

.82 .87 .84 .90
.86 .88 .84 .90


.68 .69 .73 .70 .75
.51 .58 .62 .60 .62

-.12 -.03 -.10 -.08 -.12
-.10 -.08 -.05 -.05 -.11


-.54 -.54 -.55 -.52 -.54
-.54 -.59 -.50 -.41 -.51


-.53 -.54 -.51 -.47 -.49
-.57 -.50 -.50 -.40 -.50


.87
.86

.03 .74
.21 .73


-.34 .28 .82
-.07 .44 .83


-.29 .18 .74 .74
-.07 .40 .82 .87


10. Extra Effort 2.60 1.16 .68 .69 .73 .69 .74
2.51 1.14 .71 .75 .78 .75 .82

11. Effectiveness 2.62 .72 .51 .44 .46 .41 .44
2.66 .88 .62 .48 .52 .40 .53


.62 .03 -.36 -.34 .91
.63 -.01 -.36 -.35 .86

.32 -.14 -.35 -.41 .45 .91
.26 -.04 -.41 -.45 .48 .87


12. Satisfaction 2.57 1.28 .25 .22 .21 .18 .27 .19 .06 -.21 -.25 .23 .15 .94
2.38 1.28 .35 .18 .22 .08 .24 .11 .18 -.17 -.19 .19 .40 .93
Note. Each factor was rated on the 5-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 4(frequently, if not always). Alpha
coefficients are reported in boldface along the diagonal. First values in each column show correlations from
the validation set of samples (N=1,394 after listwise deletion) and second values in each column show
correlations from the cross-validation set of samples (N=1,490 after listwise deletion). Reproduced by
special permission of the Publisher, MIND GARDEN, Inc., 1690 Woodside Road #202, Redwood City,
CA 90461 USA www.mindgarden.com from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research by
Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J Avolio. Copyright 1995, 2000 by Bernard M Bass and Bruce J Avolio. All
rights reserved. Further reproduction is prohibited without Publisher's written permission.









(Bass & Avolio, 1997). Bass and Avolio (1997) stressed that the Goodness of Fit Index

of .91 for the full model exceeded the .90 cut-off criterion recommended in the literature

and that the Root Mean Square Residual of .04 of the full model satisfied the criterion

cut-off of less than .05 recommended by Joreskog and Sorbom (1989).

Table 3-3 Comparison of Overall Fit Measures Among Several Factor Models
Fit Measure One- Two- Three- Five- Nine-Factor
Factor Factor Factor Factor Model
Model Model Model Model (Full Model)

Chi-Square/df 5674/594 5260/593 3529/591 3341/584 2394/558
(0,8 5 W -4i (4258/593) (4229/591) (4126/584) (2967/558)
GFI .75 (.66) .77 (.81) .86 (.81) .86 (.82) .91 (.88)
AGFI .72 (.62) .74 (.79) .84 (.79) .84 (.80) .89 (.86)
RMSR .07 (.08) .08 (.07) .05 (.07) .05 (.07) .04 (.05)
Note. First values based on validation set of samples (N= 1,394). Values in parentheses are based on cross-
validation set of samples (N=1,490). GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted GFI; RMSR = Root
Mean Square Residual. Reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, MIND GARDEN, Inc., 1690
Woodside Road .2O2. Redwood City, CA 90461 USA www.mindgarden.com from the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire for Research by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J Avolio. Copyright 1995, 2000 by
Bernard M Bass and Bruce J Avolio. All rights reserved. Further reproduction is prohibited without
Publisher's written permission.

One of the most comprehensive reviews of the MLQ to date was a meta-analysis

conducted by Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996). The researchers looked at

approximately 40 studies from a variety of countries, institutions, and organizational

levels. They concluded that the MLQ is a valid and reliable measure of transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire leadership (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).

Data Collection

Each dean of students at the institutions involved in the study was sent a letter of

introduction from the researcher. The letter explained the study, provided a copy of the

MLQ for the dean's review, and provided the dean with the contact information for the

researcher and the researcher's academic advisor.








All data was collected via the self-administered MLQ and the researcher-developed

demographic information sheet that were mailed to each member of the sample as part of

the survey packet. Participants, through the letter of introduction, were assured of

confidentiality and anonymity in the final reporting of results.

Survey packets were mailed to the professional staff members within the dean of

students office or its equivalent at each of the 38 institutions in the study during the late

spring and early summer of 2003. For institutions that had four or fewer professional

staff members in the Dean of Students Office, survey packets were sent to each

professional staff member. For institutions that had over four professional staff members

in their Dean of Students Office, four staff members were randomly selected and the

survey packets sent to those four staff members.

The survey packet included a cover letter, an informed consent form, a copy of

the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5x-Short), a demographic

information sheet, and a postage-paid return envelope. Twenty-one days after the initial

mailing a duplicate packet containing a reminder letter was sent to all members of the

sample who had not returned the survey packet materials. Twenty-four days after the

second mailing, a third and final packet was mailed to the remaining non-respondents.

Data Analysis

Research Question 1 examined the degree to which deans of students exhibited

transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors. Data collected by

MLQ was analyzed using SPSS to compute the mean scores and standard deviations for

the leadership scales of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.








Research questions 2, 3. and 4 employed multiple regression analyses to evaluate

the degree of relationship between each dependent variable (willingness to exert extra

effort, leadership effectiveness, and satisfaction with the leader) and the multiple

independent variables (transformation, transactional, and laissez-faire behaviors). SPSS

and SAS statistical software was utilized to run standard multiple regressions with the

composite independent variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership,

and laissez-faire leadership. Further analyses focusing on the component behaviors that

comprise the composite independent variables were conducted using SAS multiple

regression for full and reduced models and all-possible subsets.

Research question 5 utilized independent-samples t-tests to examine whether

there was a relationship between gender and the perception of transformational leadership

behavior, transactional leadership behavior, or laissez-faire leadership behavior.

Human Subjects

All respondents of the study were assured of confidentiality in the handling and

reporting of results. No adverse affects were foreseeable by participating or refusing to

participate in the study; therefore, the risk to human subjects was considered to be

negligible. Approval to proceed with this study was secured through the Institutional

Review Board of the University of Florida before participants were contacted.














CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA

The purpose of the study was to examine the leadership behaviors of deans of

students at public research universities in the southeast using Bass and Avolio's (1997)

Full Range of Leadership model. The study investigated the relationship between

transformational, transactional, and laissez-fair leadership behaviors of the deans and the

outcome variables of subordinate satisfaction with the leader, subordinate perception of

leadership effectiveness, and subordinate willingness to exert extra effort.

Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:

1. To what extent do deans of students exhibit transformational, transactional, and
laissez-fair leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?

2. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' perception of leader
effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater
Form (5X-Short)?

3. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' satisfaction with
their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?

4. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' willingness to exert
extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?

5. Is there a relationship between gender and the transformational leadership
behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership








behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?

Survey Responses

The population for this study was student affairs professional staff members

supervised by deans of students at public institutions of higher education classified as

either Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive or Doctoral/Research Universities-

Intensive in the 2000 Carnegie Classification (Carnegie Foundation, 2000) located in the

southeastern states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The total number

of institutions representing this population is 45. Five institutions in this population did

not have an equivalent position to a dean of students for the purpose of this study and two

institutions had the position vacant at the time of the study. Therefore, 38 institutions

were used in the study.

Survey packets were mailed to the professional staff members within the Dean of

Students Office or its equivalent at each of the 38 institutions in the study during the late

spring and early summer of 2003. For institutions that had four or fewer professional

staff members in the Dean of Students Office, survey packets were sent to each

professional staff member. For institutions that had over four professional staff members

in their Dean of Students Office, four staff members were randomly selected and the

survey packets sent to those four staff members.

The survey packet included a cover letter, an informed consent form, a copy of

the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5x-Short), a demographic

information sheet, and a postage-paid return envelope. Twenty-one days after the initial

mailing a duplicate packet containing a reminder letter was sent to all members of the








sample who had not returned the survey packet materials. Twenty-four days after the

second mailing, a third and final packet was mailed to the remaining non-respondents.

Response Rates

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5x-Short) was distributed

as a self-administered survey mailed to 137 professional staff members in the dean of

students office at the 38 institutions included in the study. The initial mailing and the two

reminder mailings resulted in 96 surveys being returned for a response rate of 70%.

Included in the calculation of the 70% response rate were the professional staff members

at seven institutions included in the study that did not return surveys for their respective

institutions. Therefore, while there were 38 institutions included in the study, the number

of deans evaluated was 31.

Demographic Information

The demographic information sheet was designed to obtain information from the

respondents on both the dean of students and the respondent in the areas of gender, age,

and education level. Information was also collected on the number of years the dean of

students had been in the dean position, the number of years the respondent had been in

student affairs, and the number of years that the respondent had worked with their current

dean. The demographic information sheet can be found in Appendix F.

The age demographic responses were divided into five categories. Table

4-1 presents the distribution of the respondents and deans with respect to age. The

majority of the respondents were in the 30's age group category and the majority of the

deans were in the 40's age group category. The deans tended to be in their 40's or older

and the respondents tended to be in their 40's or younger.









Table 4-1 Summary of Respondents and Deans' Age Distribution
Age Category 20 30 40 50 60

%of Deansa 0.00 6.45 51.61 35.48 6.45

% of Respondentsb 23.95 40.62 25.00 7.92 3.12
Note.
an =31. bn = 96.

The majority of the respondents were female with 57.3% of the sample being

female and 42.7% being male. Of the deans, 45.2% were female and 54.8% were male.

The respondents and deans' educational levels are presented in Table 4-2. The deans'

educational levels were Baccalaureate Degree only (BS/BA) 0.0%, Masters Degree

19.3%, Juris Doctor (JD) 9.7% and Doctorate (PhD/EdD) 71.0%. The respondents'

educational levels were Baccalaureate Degree (BS/BA) 10.4%, Masters Degree 67.7%,

Juris Doctor (JD) 5.2% and Doctorate (PhD/EdD) 16.6%.

Table 4-2 Summary of Educational Level for Deans and Respondents
BA/BS MS/MA JD PhD/EdD

Deans % 0.0 19.3 9.7 71.0

Respondents % 10.4 67.7 5.2 16.6
Note.
a b
n =31. n = 96.

The average length of time the respondents had worked in student affairs was 7.25

years. The average length of time the respondents had been working under the dean they

evaluated for the study was 3.8 years. The deans that were evaluated for the study had

served in the dean position for an average of 7.6 years.

Research Question 1

Research Question 1 examined the extent to which deans of students exhibit

transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors as rated by their









subordinates using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short).

Table 4-3 provides the means and standard deviations calculated for each of the

leadership behaviors in the Full Range of Leadership model. The higher the mean score

for the leadership behavior, the higher the subordinates' perception of the leadership

behavior being present in the leadership style of the deans.

The leadership behavior with the highest mean score was inspirational motivation

(2.94), indicating that it was the leadership behavior that subordinates perceived most

frequently in their dean of students. Among the transformational leadership behaviors,

inspirational motivation was followed by idealized influence-attributed (2.82), idealized

influence- behavior (2.75), individualized consideration (2.66), and intellectual

stimulation (2.61).

The transactional leadership behavior with the highest mean score was contingent

reward (2.64). The 2.64 mean score for contingent reward indicates it was perceived

more often in deans of students than the transformational leadership behavior of

intellectual stimulation, but perceived less often than the transformational leadership

behaviors of inspirational motivation, idealized influence-attributed, idealized influence-

behavior, and individualized consideration. Among the transactional leadership

behaviors, contingent reward was followed by management-by-exception passive (1.24),

and management-by-exception-active (1.15).

The least frequently exhibited behavior by deans of students as perceived by the

subordinates was laissez-faire leadership. Laissez-faire leadership behavior had a mean

score of.91.









Table 4-3 Deans of Students: Leadership Behaviors
Leadership Behavior Type Behavior

Transformational


Inspirational
Motivation

Idealized Influence
Attributed

Idealized Influence
Behavior

Individualized
Consideration

Intellectual
Stimulation


Transactional


Contingent
Reward

Management-by-
Exception
Passive

Management-by-
Exception
Active

Laissez-Faire


Laissez-Faire
Note. n = 96.


2.94 .66 1.00 4.00


2.82 .89 0.00 4.00


2.76 .77 1.00 4.00


2.66 .69 0.50 4.00


2.61

1.68


1.00

0.67


4.00

2.58


2.64 .69 0.75 4.00



1.24 .84 0.00 3.00


1.15

.91


0.00

0.00


3.00

3.50


Research Question 2

Research Question 2 examined whether there was a relationship between the

transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-

faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff


M

2.76


Min.

0.80


Max.

4.00








members' perception of leader effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short).

The initial analysis was performed between the dependent variable (leader

effectiveness) and the composite independent variables of transformational leadership,

transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership using standard multiple regression

analysis. The analysis was performed using both SAS Regression and SPSS Regression.

Further analyses were conducted using SAS multiple regression for full and reduced

models and all possible subsets.

The full and reduced model regression and the all-possible subsets regression

focused on the components in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) that

compose the composite independent variables of transformational leadership,

transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership. The transformational leadership

section of the MLQ is composed of five scales of four items each. The component

behaviors for transformational leadership are idealized influence-attributed (II-A),

idealized influence-behavior (II-B), inspirational motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation

(IS), and individualized consideration (IC). The transactional leadership section of the

MLQ is composed of three scales of four items each. The component behaviors for

transactional leadership are contingent reward (CR), management-by-exception active

(MBE-A), and management-by-exception passive (MBE-P). The laissez-faire (LF)

leadership section of the MLQ is a single scale with four items.

Assumptions were tested by examining normal probability plots of residuals and

scatter diagrams of residuals versus predicted residuals. No violations of normality,








linearity, or homoscedasticity of residuals were detected. In addition, box plots revealed

no evidence of outliers.

For the standard multiple regression analysis, no interaction effects between the

independent variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and

laissez-faire leadership were found. The regression analysis revealed that the model

significantly predicted leader effectiveness, F(3,92) = 137.71, p< .0001. R2 for the model

was .818, and adjusted R2 was .812, indicating that the model accounts for 81.2% of the

variance for leadership effectiveness. Table 4-4 displays the unstandardized regression

coefficients (B), the standardized regression coefficients (P), the observed t value (t), the

significance level (p), and the semipartial correlations (sr) for each variable.

All three of the independent variables were significant at the p < .05 level. For

transformational leadership, 3 = .651, t = 12.22, and p = .0001. For transactional

leadership, P3 = .159, t = 2.99, and p = .004. For laissez-faire leadership, P3 = -.414, t = -

6.85, and p = .0001. Comparing across variables, transformational leadership was the

strongest predictor of leader effectiveness, and there was a significant negative

relationship between laissez-faire behavior and leadership effectiveness.

Under Bass and Avolio's (1997) Full Range of Leadership model, the dependent

variable of leader effectiveness is higher for leaders who are perceived as having higher

Table 4-4 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Leader
Effectiveness
Variable B 13 p sr
Transformational .863 .651 12.22 .0001* .544
Transactional .351 .159 2.99 .004* .133
Laissez-Faire -.441 -.414 -6.85 .0001 -.305
Note. n = 96. R2 = .818.
*p <.05.








scores on the transformational leadership component behaviors. Therefore, a multiple

regression analysis using full and reduced models was calculated to examine the extent to

which the transformational leadership component behaviors added to the predictive

accuracy for the dependent variable of leader effectiveness when they are added to the

transactional component behaviors and laissez-faire behavior.

The transformational leadership components significantly added to the predictive

accuracy for the dependent variable of leadership effectiveness when they were added to

the components for transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership behavior. The F-

value was calculated at 9.88 with p < .05 and R2 increased by 8% when the

transformational components were added to the reduced model. In addition, it was found

that of the variance in leader effectiveness that was not associated with transactional and

laissez-faire leadership, 57% was associated with the transformational leadership

behaviors. Table 4-5 displays the unstandardized regression coefficients (B), the

standard errors (SE), the observed t values (t), and the significance levels (p) for the

component behaviors in the reduced model and the full model.

The component behaviors were analyzed using an all-possible subsets regression

with a R selection method to determine which groups of behaviors were the best

predictors of leader effectiveness. Table 4-6 displays the R2 and the adjusted R2 for the

best one-behavior model through the model that includes all nine behaviors. The highest

adjusted R2 was .851 for both the six-behavior model (II-A, II-B, IC, CR, MBE-A, LF)

and the seven-behavior model (II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR, MBE-A, LF). However, the four-

behavior model was close to being as strong as a predictor of leader effectiveness as the

six-behavior and seven-behavior models with an adjusted R2 of .846.









Table 4-5 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for
Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors


Leader Effectiveness


Behavior B SE t p
Reduced
CR .870 .071 12.05 .0001
MBE-A .070 .060 1.16 .2488
MBE-P .059 .077 0.77 .4441
LF -.487 .077 -6.30 .0001*
Fullb
II-A .276 .077 1.77 .0005*
II-B .178 .091 1.96 .0532
IM -.076 .082 -0.94 .3523
IS .071 .110 0.64 .5214
IC .101 .106 0.95 .3452
CR .419 .085 4.92 .0001*
MBE-A .049 .052 0.94 .3505
MBE-P .054 .066 0.82 .4122
LF -.360 .068 -5.29 .0001*
Note.
n =96. n =96.
aR = .780. 'R2= .863.
*p < .05.

Table 4-6 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Leader Effectiveness
Number
in Model R2 Adjusted R2 Behaviors in Model


.696
.776
.841
.853
.857
.860
.862
.862
.863


.693
.771
.835
.846
.850
.851
.851
.850
.849


II-A
II-A, CR
II-A, CR, LF
II-A, II-B, CR, LF
II-A, II-B, IC, CR, LF
II-A, II-B, IC, CR, MBE-A, LF
II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR, MBE-A, LF
II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR, MBE-A, MBE-P, LF
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, IC, CR, MBE-A, MBE-P, LF


Note. n =96.

Research Question 3

Research Question 3 examined whether there was a relationship between the

transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-

faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9








members' satisfaction with their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short).

The initial analysis was performed between the dependent variable (satisfaction

with the leader) and the composite independent variables of transformational leadership,

transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership using standard multiple regression

analysis. The analysis was performed using both SAS Regression and SPSS Regression.

Further analyses were conducted using SAS multiple regression for full and reduced

models and all-possible subsets.

The full and reduced model regression and the all-possible subsets regression

focused on the components in the MLQ that compose the composite independent

variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire

leadership. The transformational leadership section of the MLQ is composed of five

scales of four items each. The component behaviors for transformational leadership are

idealized influence-attributed (II-A), idealized influence-behavior (II-B), inspirational

motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS), and individualized consideration (IC). The

transactional leadership section of the MLQ is composed of three scales of four items

each. The component behaviors for transactional leadership are contingent reward (CR),

management-by-exception-active (MBE-A), and management-by-exception passive

(MBE-P). The laissez-faire (LF) leadership section of the MLQ is a single scale with

four items.

Assumptions were tested by examining normal probability plots of residuals and

scatter diagrams of residuals versus predicted residuals. No violations of normality,








linearity, or homoscedasticity of residuals were detected. In addition, box plots revealed

no evidence of outliers.

For the standard multiple regression analysis, no interaction effects between the

independent variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and

laissez-faire leadership were found. The regression analysis revealed that the model

significantly predicted satisfaction with the leader, F(3,92) = 91.757,p< .0001. R2 for the

model was .750, and adjusted R2 was .741, indicating that the model accounts for 74.1%

of the variance for satisfaction with the leader. Table 4-7 displays the unstandardized

regression coefficients (B), the standardized regression coefficients (P3), the observed t

value (t), the significance level (p), and the semipartial correlation (sr) for each variable.

The independent variables of transformational leadership and laissez-faire

leadership were significant at the p < .05 level. For transformational leadership, P3 = .700,

t= 11.22, and p= .001. For laissez-faire, 3 = -.283, t = -3.99, andp = .0001.

Transactional leadership was not significant at the p < .05 level with P3 = .052, 1 = 0.83,

and p = .410. Comparing across variables, transformational leadership was the strongest

predictor of leader effectiveness, and there was a significant negative relationship

between laissez-faire behavior and leadership effectiveness.

Under Bass and Avolio's (1997) Full Range of Leadership model, the dependent

variable of satisfaction with the leader is higher for leaders who are perceived as having

Table 4-7 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Satisfaction with
the Leader
Variable B 13 p sr
Transformational .923 .700 11.22 .0001* .585
Transactional .113 .052 .83 .410 .043
Laissez-Faire -.299 -.283 -3.99 .0001* -.208
Note. n = 96. R2 =.750.
*p < .05.








higher scores on the transformational leadership component behaviors. Therefore, a

multiple regression analysis using full and reduced models was calculated to examine the

extent to which the transformational leadership component behaviors added to the

predictive accuracy for the dependent variable of satisfaction with the leader when they

were added to the transactional component behaviors and laissez-faire behavior.

The transformational leadership components significantly added to the predictive

accuracy for the dependent variable of satisfaction with the leader when they were added

to the components for transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership behavior. The

F-value was calculated at 13.69 with p < .05 and R2 increased by 15.7% when the

transformational components were added to the reduced model. In addition, it was found

that of the variance in satisfaction with the leader that was not associated with

transactional and laissez-faire leadership, 79.6% was associated with the transformational

leadership behaviors. Table 4-8 displays the unstandardized regression coefficients (B),

the standard errors (SE), the observed t values (t), and the significance levels (p) for the

component behaviors in the reduced model and the full model.

The component behaviors were analyzed using an all-possible subsets regression

with a R2 selection method to determine which groups of behaviors were the best

predictors of satisfaction with the leader. Table 4-9 displays the R2 and the adjusted R2

for the best one-behavior model through the model that includes all nine behaviors. The

highest adjusted R2 was .849 for the full nine-behavior model. The second highest

adjusted R2 was .789 for both the four-behavior (II-A, II-B, CR, LF) and five-behavior

(II-A, II-B, IM, CR, LF) models.









Table 4-8 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Satisfaction with the
Leader Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors
Behavior B SE t p
Reduced
CR .760 .089 8.54 .0001*
MBE-A -.022 .076 -0.29 .7713
MBE-P .052 .097 0.53 .5974
LF -.420 .098 -4.31 .0001*
Fullb
II-A .467 .091 5.11 .0001*
II-B .216 .109 1.99 .0496*
IM -.104 .097 -1.07 .2875
IS .107 .131 0.82 .4159
IC -.002 .127 -0.01 .9895
CR .204 .102 2.00 .0486*
MBE-A -.035 .062 -0.56 .5739
MBE-P .034 .079 0.43 .6671
LF -.235 .081 -2.89 .0048*
Note.
n = 96. bn = 96.
`R' = .645. bR2= .802.
*p <.05.

Table 4-9 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Satisfaction with the Leader


Adjusted R2
.719
.752
.778
.789
.789
.788
.786
.784
.849


Behaviors in Model


II-A
II-A, LF
II-A, II-B, LF
II-A, II-B, CR, LF
II-A, II-B, IM, CR, LF
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, CR, LF
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, CR, MBE-A. LF
II-A, II-B, IM. IS, CR, MBE-A, MBE-P, LF
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, IC, CR, MBE-A, MBE-P, LF


Research Question 4

Research Question 4 examined whether there was a relationship between the

transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-

faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff


Number
in Model
1
2

4
5
6
7
8
9
Note. n = 96.


R2
.722
.757
.785
.798
.800
.801
.802
.802
.863









members' willingness to exert extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short).

The initial analysis was performed between the dependent variable (willingness to

exert extra effort) and the composite independent variables of transformational

leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership using standard multiple

regression analysis. The analysis was performed using both SAS Regression and SPSS

Regression. Further analyses were conducted using SAS multiple regression for full and

reduced models and all possible subsets.

The full and reduced model regression and the all possible subsets regression

focused on the components in the MLQ that compose the composite independent

variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire

leadership. The transformational leadership section of the MLQ is composed of five

scales of four items each. The component behaviors for transformational leadership are

idealized influence-attributed (II-A). idealized influence-behavior (II-B), inspirational

motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS), and individualized consideration (IC). The

transactional leadership section of the MLQ is composed of three scales of four items

each. The component behaviors for transactional leadership are contingent reward (CR),

management-by-exception active (MBE-A), and management-by-exception passive

(MBE-P). The laissez-faire (LF) leadership section of the MLQ is a single scale with

four items.

Assumptions were tested by examining normal probability plots of residuals and

scatter diagrams of residuals versus predicted residuals. No violations of normality,








linearity, or homoscedasticity of residuals were detected. In addition, box plots revealed

no evidence of outliers.

For the standard multiple regression analysis, an interaction effect between the

independent variables transformational leadership and transactional leadership was found

to be significant at thep < .05 level (p = .0114, 1 = -2.58). However, adding the

interaction term to the model only increased predictability of extra effort by 1.7%;

therefore, the interaction term was excluded from the model for the purposes of this

study. No other interaction effects between the independent variables were significant.

The regression analysis revealed that the model significantly predicted

willingness to exert extra effort, F(3,92) = 88.947, p < .0001. R2 for the model was .744,

and adjusted R2 was .735, indicating that the model accounts for 73.5% of the variance

for willingness to exert extra effort. Table 4-10 displays the unstandardized regression

coefficients (B). the standardized regression coefficients (13), the observed t value (t), the

significance level (p), and the semipartial correlation (sr) for each variable.

All three of the independent variables were significant at thep < .05 level. For

transformational leadership, 13 = .699, t = 11.07, and p = .0001. For transactional

leadership, 13 = .158, t = 2.50, andp = .014. For laissez-faire leadership, 3 = -.283, t = -

3.94, andp = .0002. Comparing across variables, transformational leadership was the

strongest predictor of willingness to exert extra effort, and there was a significant

negative relationship between laissez-faire behavior and willingness to exert extra effort.

Under Bass and Avolio's (1997) Full Range of Leadership model, the dependent variable

of willingness to exert extra effort is higher for leaders who are perceived as having

higher scores on the transformational leadership component behaviors. Therefore, a









Table 4-10 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Willingness to
Exert Extra Effort
Variable B (3 t p sr
Transformational 1.029 .699 11.07 .0001* .584
Transactional .387 .158 2.50 .014* .132
Laissez-Faire -.334 -.283 -3.94 .0002* -.208
Note. n = 96. R2 = .744.
*p <.05.

multiple regression analysis using full and reduced models was calculated to examine the

extent to which the transformational leadership component behaviors added to the

predictive accuracy for the dependent variable of willingness to exert extra effort when

they are added to the transactional component behaviors and laissez-faire behavior.

The transformational leadership components significantly added to the predictive

accuracy for the dependent variable of willingness to exert extra effort when they were

added to the components for transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership

behavior. The F-value was calculated at 13.32 with < .05 and R2 increased by 16.3%

when the transformational scales were added to the reduced model. In addition, it was

found that of the variance in willingness to exert extra effort that was not associated with

transactional and laissez-faire leadership, 77.5% was associated with the transformational

leadership behaviors. Table 4-11 displays the unstandardized regression coefficients (B),

the standard errors (SE), the observed t values (t), and the significance levels (p) for the

component behaviors in the reduced model and the full model.

The component behaviors were analyzed using an all-possible subsets regression

with a R selection method to determine which groups of behaviors were the best

predictors of willingness to exert extra effort. Table 4-12 displays the R2 and the adjusted

R2 for the best one-behavior model through the model that includes all nine behaviors.









Table 4-11 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Willingness to
Exert Extra Effort Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors
Behavior B SE t p
Reduced
CR .918 .102 9.01 .0001*
MBE-A .071 .087 0.81 .4201
MBE-P .146 .112 1.30 .1953
LF -.478 .112 -4.28 .0001*
Full'b
II-A .228 .105 2.16 .0334*
II-B .275 .125 2.20 .0305*
IM -.185 .112 -1.65 .1028
IS .086 .152 0.56 .5736
IC .477 .146 3.26 .0016*
CR .240 .117 2.05 .0433*
MBE-A -.006 .072 -0.09 .9297
MBE-P .155 .091 1.71 .0914
LF -.319 .094 -3.41 .0010*
Note.
an =96. bn =96.
OR2= .627. bR2= .790.
*p<.05.

The highest adjusted R2 was .772 for the seven-behavior model (II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR,

MBE-P, LF). However, the adjusted R2 for the five-behavior model (II-A, II-B, IC, CR,

LF) of .763 and the adjusted R2 for the six-behavior model (II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR, LF) of

.768 are within 1% of the seven-behavior adjusted R2.

Table 4-12 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Willingness to Exert Extra
Effort


Adjusted R2
.650
.721
.745
.757
.763
.768
.772
.770
.768


Behaviors in Model
IC
II-A, IC
II-A, IC, LF
II-A, II-B, IC, LF
II-A, II-B, IC, CR, LF
II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR, LF
II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR, MBE-P, LF
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, IC, CR, MBE-P, LF
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, IC, CR, MBE-A, MBE-P, LF


Number
in Model
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Note. n = 96.


R2
.654
.727
.753
.768
.776
.782
.789
.790
.790








Research Question 5

Research Question 5 examined whether there was a relationship between gender

and transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the

laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using

the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short).

The analysis was completed by evaluating each of the composite leadership

behaviors (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) separately. For each

leadership behavior, independent-samples t-tests using SPSS were run: (a) with the test

variable being the overall mean score for the leadership behavior and the grouping

variable being gender of participant; (b) with the test variable being the mean score for

the leadership behavior and the grouping variable being the gender of the dean; (c) with

the test variable being the mean score for male deans only and the grouping variable

being gender of participant; and (d) with the test variable being the mean score for female

deans only and the grouping variable being gender of the participant.

The t-tests did not reveal any significant differences in how deans' leadership

behaviors were perceived depending on either the deans' gender or on the participants'

gender. For transformational leadership, there was no significant difference in the mean

score for all deans as perceived by male participants (M= 2.75, SD = .616) and female

participants (M= 2.76, SD = .716) with t(94) = -0.080, and p = .936. There was no

significant difference between the mean scores for male deans (M = 2.69, SD = .654) and

female deans (M = 2.84, SD = .690) as perceived by all participants with t(94) = -1.087,

and p = .280. There was no significant difference between the mean scores for male

deans (M= 2.61, SD = .726) and female deans (M= 2.92, SD = .684) as perceived by








female participants with t(53) = -1.633, andp = .108. There was no significant difference

between the mean scores for male deans (M= 2.78, SD = .567) and female deans (M

2.71, SD = .703) as perceived by male participants with t(39) = 0.380, and p = .706.

There was no significant difference in the mean scores for female deans as perceived by

male participants (M= 2.71, SD = .703) and female participants (M = 2.92, SD = .684)

with t(42) = -0.969, andp = .338. There was no significant difference in the mean scores

for male deans as perceived by male participants (M= 2.78, SD = .567) and female

participants (M= 2.61, SD = .726) with t(50) = 0.971, and p = .336.

For transactional leadership, there was no significant difference in the mean score

for all deans as perceived by male participants (M= 1.70, SD = .410) and female

participants (M= 1.67, SD =.402) with t(94) = 0.382, andp = .703. There was no

significant difference between the mean scores for male deans (M = 1.74, SD = .334) and

female deans (M = 1.60, SD = .466) as perceived by all participants with t(94) = 1.637,

and p = .106. There was no significant difference between the mean scores for male

deans (M= 1.75, SD = .296) and female deans (M= 1.58, SD = .475) as perceived by

female participants with t(53) = 1.56, and p = .126. There was no significant difference

between the mean scores for male deans (M= 1.73 SD = .377) and female deans (M =

1.64, SD = .464) as perceived by male participants with t(39) =.702, and p = .487. There

was no significant difference in the mean scores for female deans as perceived by male

participants (M= 1.64, SD = .464) and female participants (M= 1.58, SD = .475) with

t(42) = 0.388, andp =.700. There was no significant difference in the mean scores for

male deans as perceived by male participants (M= 1.73, SD = .376) and female

participants (M= 1.75, SD = .296) with t(50) = 0.178 andp =.859.









For laissez-faire leadership, there was no significant difference in the mean score

for all deans as perceived by male participants (M = .884. SD = .806) and female

participants (M= .932. SD =.867) with t(94) = -0.275, and p =.784. There was no

significant difference between the mean scores for male deans (M= .942, SD = .847) and

female deans (M = .875, SD = .834) as perceived by all participants with t(94) = 0.391,

and p = .697. There was no significant difference between the mean scores for male

deans (M= 1.14, SD = .929) and female deans (M= .732, SD = .767) as perceived by

female participants with t(53) = 1.774, and p = .082. There was no significant difference

between the mean scores for male deans (M= .730, SD = .707) and female deans (M=

1.125 SD .913 ) as perceived by male participants with t(39) = -1.557, and p =.128.

There was no significant difference in the mean scores for female deans as perceived by

male participants (M= 1.125, SD = .913) and female participants (M= .732, SD = .766)

with t(42) = 1.525, andp = .135. There was no significant difference in the mean scores

for male deans as perceived by male participants (M = .730, SD = .707) and female

participants (M= 1.14, SD =.929) with t(50) = -1.776, andp = .082.

The findings imply that there is no significant relationship between gender and the

transformational leadership behavior, transactional leadership behavior, or laissez-faire

leadership of deans of students as perceived by their professional staff members.

Summary

A total of 137 surveys were mailed to professional staff members working in a

dean of students office at 38 public institutions of higher education classified as either

Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive or Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive in

the 2000 Carnegie Classification (Carnegie Foundation, 2000) located in the southeastern









states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Of the 137 professional staff

members surveyed, 96 returned completed surveys resulting in a response rate of 70%.

The data provided information on the extent to which deans of students exhibited

transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors as perceived by the

professional staff members in the deans' office. Multiple regression analyses were used

to examine the relationship between the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire

leadership behaviors of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff

members' perception of leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, and willingness

to exert extra effort. The data was also evaluated to examine whether there was a

relationship between gender and transformational leadership behavior, the transactional

leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans of students.

Chapter 5 follows with a summary of the study and a discussion of the findings.

Suggestions for future research are also presented.














CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents a summary and discussion of the findings, implications for

student affairs, and suggestions for future research. The purpose of the study was to

examine the leadership behaviors of deans of students at public research universities in

the southeast using Bass and Avolio's (1997) Full Range of Leadership model. The

study investigated the relationship between transformational, transactional, and laissez-

fair leadership behaviors of the deans and the outcome variables of subordinate

satisfaction with the leader, subordinate perception of leadership effectiveness, and

subordinate willingness to exert extra effort.

Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:

1. To what extent do deans of students exhibit transformational, transactional, and
laissez-fair leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?

2. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' perception of leader
effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater
Form (5X-Short)?

3. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' satisfaction with
their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?

4. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' willingness to exert








extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?

5. Is there a relationship between gender and the transformational leadership
behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership
behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?

The study examined the leadership behaviors of deans of students at public

institutions of higher education classified as either Doctoral/Research Universities-

Extensive or Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive in the 2000 Carnegie

Classification (Carnegie Foundation, 2000) located in the southeastern states of Alabama,

Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South

Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The total number of institutions representing this

population is 45. Five institutions in this population did not have an equivalent position

to a dean of students for the purpose of this study and two institutions had the position

vacant at the time of the study. Therefore, 38 institutions were used in the study.

The study utilized Bass and Avolio's (1995) Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short) to assess transformational, transactional, and

laissez-faire leadership behaviors of deans of students as perceived by their professional

staff member subordinates. A researcher-developed demographic sheet was used to

obtain the age, educational level, and gender of the participants and of the deans that

were evaluated. Statistical analyses were conducted using both SPSS and SAS statistical

software.

Summary and Discussion of Findings

This study assessed the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire

leadership behaviors of deans of students using Bass and Avolio's (1997) Full Range of









Leadership model. According to the Full Range of Leadership model, every leader

displays each of the leadership behaviors to some degree (Bass, 1998). However, the

leader with an optimal profile infrequently displays laissez-faire leadership and displays

successively higher frequencies of the transactional behaviors of management-by-

exception (passive), management-by-exception (active), and contingent reward. The

optimal leader profile displays the five transformational leadership behaviors of idealized

influence-attributed, idealized influence-behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation, and individualized consideration the most frequently (Bass, 1998).

Under the Full Range of Leadership model, the hierarchy of correlations of the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) components with the outcome variables of

leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, and willingness to exert extra effort is

typically transformational behaviors > contingent reward > management-by-exception

active > management-by-exception passive > laissez-faire leadership (Bass & Avolio,

1997). In addition. Bass (1985, 1998) states that transformational leadership augments

transactional leadership in predicting leadership behavior effects on the outcome

variables. Specifically, the augmentation effect states that transformational leadership

behaviors should account for unique variance in subordinates' ratings of the outcome

variables over and above that accounted for by transactional leadership (Bass, 1998).

The results of this study produced a profile of leadership behaviors for deans of

students that was similar to, but did not match exactly, Bass and Avolio's (1997) optimal

leader profile. The results provide evidence of the augmentation effect of

transformational leadership behaviors on subordinate ratings of the outcome variables

and provide no evidence of a relationship between gender and rating of deans of students'









leadership behaviors. Conclusions drawn from the results of this study are discussed in

relation to the research questions that served as the basis for the study.

Leadership Behaviors Exhibited by Deans of Students

The findings suggest that deans of students at public research universities in the

southeast, as a group, exhibited transformational behaviors more frequently than

transactional behaviors, which they displayed more frequently than laissez-faire

leadership behaviors. The mean scores for deans of students' leadership behavior

presented in Table 4-3 indicate that deans of students exhibited transformational

leadership "fairly often" (M= 2.76, SD = .67), transactional leadership "sometimes" (M=

1.68, SD = .40), and laissez-faire leadership "once in a while" (M= 0.91, SD = .84).

Therefore, the composite independent variables followed the Full Range of Leadership

model optimal profile which calls for transformational leadership behaviors to be

displayed more frequently than transactional leadership behaviors, which should be

displayed more frequently than laissez-faire leadership behavior (Bass & Avolio, 1997).

However, the mean scores for the component behaviors of the composite independent

variables did not exactly match the optimal profile.

The mean scores for the component behaviors of the composite independent

variables indicate that one of the transactional behaviors, contingent reward (M= 2.64,

SD = .69), was exhibited more than the transformational behavior of intellectual

stimulation (M= 2.61, SD = .78). While this finding prevents an exact match with the

optimal leadership profile proposed by Bass and Avolio (1997), it is not necessarily a

negative finding. Research on transformational leadership indicates that the frequency

with which transformational and transactional leadership behaviors emerge and are








effective can depend to some extent on the work environment, the organization, the goals

and tasks involved, and the distribution of power between the leaders and followers

(Bass, 1998).

Among the several factors that could have contributed to the relatively high mean

score for contingent reward is the possible stability of the deans' offices due to the deans'

length of time in the dean position. For this study, the average number of years the deans

of students had served in their position was 7.6 years. Therefore, due to their years of

experience in the dean position, the environment faced by the deans was a fairly

predictable and stable environment. Bass (1998) states that transactional leadership is

likely to emerge more frequently and be relatively effective when leaders are engaged in

a stable and predictable environment. What makes the dean of students position unique,

is that while it may operate in a stable and predictable environment, it often deals with

conditions of crisis and uncertainty which creates conditions that research indicates

makes the emergence of transformational leadership behaviors more likely (Bass, 1998).

Therefore, the high mean scores for the transformational leadership behaviors as well as

the transactional leadership behavior of contingent reward may be a reflection of the

environment within which the deans of students serve as leaders.

Additionally, the nature of the leader-subordinate relationship within a dean of

students office may provide some insight to the relatively high contingent reward mean

score. Bass (1998) speculates that in situations where the subordinate has power and

information, transactional leadership will emerge more frequently than in situations

where the leader retains most of the power and information. Sandeen (1996) states that

the dean of students often overseas several of the common functions found in a student









affairs division. These functions include units such as financial aid, services for students

with disabilities, and judicial affairs, which require the professional staff members within

the unit to have a high degree of knowledge and expertise in that particular area.

Therefore, a dean of students at a public research institution is typically supervising

individuals that have power and information within a specific area of responsibility.

Leader Effectiveness as Measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

The initial analysis for examining whether there was a relationship between the

transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-

faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff

members' perception of leader effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short) was done using SAS and SPSS standard regression.

The analysis revealed that the model significantly predicted leader effectiveness with the

composite independent variables accounting for 81.2% of the variance for leadership

effectiveness. For leader effectiveness, all three of the variables were significant at the p

< .05 level. However, transformational leadership was the strongest predictor of leader

effectiveness with a standardized regression coefficient of .651 compared to a

standardized regression coefficient for transactional leadership of .159. Therefore, the

composite variable of transformational leadership was a stronger contributor to the model

in predicting leader effectiveness than the composite variable of transactional leadership.

There was a significant negative relationship between laissez-faire behavior and

leadership effectiveness with laissez-faire leadership having a standardized regression

coefficient of-.414 and a semipartial correlation of-.305. This indicates that deans who

frequently exhibit laissez-faire leadership behaviors are more likely to be perceived as









ineffective by their professional staff members than dean's that rarely display such

behavior.

Further analyses were performed on the outcome variable of leader effectiveness

using SAS full and reduced model regression and SAS all possible subsets regression.

These analyses used the component behaviors of transformational and transactional

leadership to examine which component behaviors were having the strongest influence

on predicting leader effectiveness. While the full and reduced model regression did find

that the transformational leadership components significantly added to the predictive

accuracy of leader effectiveness, the only transformational leadership behavior

component that was found to be significant in the full model at the p < .05 level, was

Idealized Influence Attributed. The transactional leadership behavior of contingent

reward was also significant at the p < .05 level, as was laissez-faire leadership.

The significant predictive value of idealized influence-attributed and contingent

reward was also seen in the all-possible subsets regression. For the one-behavior model,

idealized influence-attributed was the best predictor of leader effectiveness with an

adjusted R2 of .693. For the two-behavior model, idealized influence-attributed and

contingent reward were the best predictors of leader effectiveness with an adjusted R2 of

.771.

The findings of the full and reduced model regression and the all-possible subsets

indicate that, for the participants in this study, the transactional behavior of contingent

reward was a stronger predictor of leader effectiveness than several of the

transformational leadership component behaviors. This finding is not altogether

unexpected since Bass (1985, 1998) states that in general the best leaders are both









transformational and transactional, and that contingent reward behavior plays an

important role in effective leadership. However, it is not what the Full Range of

Leadership model would have predicted and it runs counter to much of the research on

the Full Range of Leadership model (Bass, 1998; Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990;

Howell & Avolio, 1993).

The findings on contingent reward suggest that there is something about the

nature of the work within a dean of students office that supports the transactional

behavior of contingent reward being a fairly strong predictor of leader effectiveness.

Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999) speculated that contingent reward could be the foundation

through which leaders build trust and structure the professional development expectations

of their followers. Studies that examined factors contributing to attrition in student

affairs work found that the work is often associated with long hours and stressful

conditions and that professional staff members are often dissatisfied with professional

development opportunities (Barr, 1990; Carpenter, 1990; Bender, 1980). Therefore, one

possible reason that contingent reward emerged as a stronger predictor of leader

effectiveness than expected is that it is effective in developing trust in a stressful work

environment and in clarifying professional development opportunities for professional

staff members within a dean of students office.

Satisfaction with the Leader as Measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

The initial analysis for examining whether there was a relationship between the

transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-

faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff

members' perception of satisfaction with the leader as measured by the Multifactor









Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short) was done using SAS and SPSS

standard regression.

The analysis revealed that the model significantly predicted satisfaction with the

leader with composite independent variables accounting for 74.1% of the variance for

satisfaction with the leader. The independent variables of transformational leadership

and laissez-faire leadership were significant at the p < .05 level. The independent

variable of transactional leadership was not significant at the p < .05 level.

Transformational leadership was the strongest predictor of satisfaction with the leader

with a standardized regression coefficient of .700.

There was a significant negative relationship between laissez-faire behavior and

satisfaction with the leader with laissez-faire leadership having a standardized regression

coefficient of-.283. This indicates that professional staff members who perceive their

dean as frequently exhibiting laissez-faire leadership behaviors are less likely to be

satisfied with their dean as a leader.

Further analyses were performed on the outcome variable of satisfaction with the

leader using SAS full and reduced model regression and SAS all possible subsets

regression. These analyses used the component behaviors of transformational and

transactional leadership to examine which component behaviors were having the

strongest influence on predicting satisfaction with the leader. The full and reduced model

regression found that the transformational leadership components significantly added to

the predictive accuracy of satisfaction with the leader. The transformational leadership

behavior components that were found to be significant in the full model at the p < .05

level, were idealized influence-attributed and idealized influence-behavior. The








transactional leadership behavior of contingent reward was also significant at the p < .05

level, as was laissez-faire leadership.

The significant predictive value of idealized influence-attributed, idealized

influence-behavior, contingent reward, and laissez-faire leadership was seen in the in the

all-possible subsets regression. For the four-behavior model these components were the

best predictor of satisfaction with the leader with an adjusted R2 of .789. The only model

with a higher adjusted R2 was the full nine-behavior model. For the one-behavior model,

idealized influence-attributed was the best predictor of satisfaction with the leader with

an adjusted R2 of .719. For the two-behavior model, idealized influence-attributed and

laissez-faire behavior were the best predictors of satisfaction with the leader with an

adjusted R2 of .752. Idealized influence-attributed, idealized influence-behavior, and

laissez-faire comprised the best three-behavior model with an R2 of .778.

The findings of the full and reduced model regression and the all-possible subsets

regression indicate that for the outcome variable of satisfaction with the leader, the results

were closer to what the Full Range of Leadership model would predict than the findings

for leader effectiveness. The transactional behavior of contingent reward was found to be

a significant predictor, but it was not as strong as predictor as it was for leader

effectiveness. The transformational leadership behaviors of idealized influence-attributed

and idealized influence-behavior, were stronger predictors than contingent reward and for

the standard multiple regression with the composite independent variables, transactional

leadership was not a significant predictor.

The strong predictive value of the idealized influence components of

transformational leadership for satisfaction with the leader is consistent with Avolio,









Bass, and Jung's (1999) findings on the component behaviors of the Full Range of

Leadership model. Idealized influence is a charismatic type of leadership that builds

followers' identification with the leader and the leader's vision. It is characterized by the

leader establishing himself or herself as role model through exhibiting high ethical

standards and it energizes followers as well as providing them with a clear sense of

purpose (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999).

Willingness to Exert Extra Effort as Measured by the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire

The initial analysis for examining whether there was a relationship between the

transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-

faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff

members' willingness to exert extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short) was done using SAS and SPSS standard regression.

The analysis revealed that the model significantly predicted willingness to exert extra

effort with the composite independent variables accounting for 73.5% of the variance for

willingness to exert extra effort. All three of the independent variables were significant

at the p < .05 level. However, transformational leadership was the strongest predictor of

willingness to exert extra effort with a standardized regression coefficient of .699

compared to a standardized regression coefficient for transactional leadership of .158.

Therefore, the composite variable of transformational leadership is a stronger contributor

to the model in predicting willingness to exert extra effort than the composite variable of

transactional leadership.

There was a significant negative relationship between laissez-faire behavior and

willingness to exert extra effort with laissez-faire leadership having a standardized









regression coefficient of-.283 and a semipartial correlation of-.208. This indicates that

deans who frequently exhibit laissez-faire leadership behaviors are less likely to have

subordinates that are willing to exert extra effort than deans that rarely display such

behavior.

Further analyses were performed on the outcome variable of willingness to exert

extra effort using SAS full and reduced model regression and SAS all possible subsets

regression. These analyses used the component behaviors of transformational and

transactional leadership to examine which component behaviors were having the

strongest influence on predicting subordinate willingness to exert extra effort. The full

and reduced model regression did find that the transformational leadership components

significantly added to the predictive accuracy for willingness to exert extra effort.

Adding the transformational components to the model increased R2 by 16.3%, and of the

variance in willingness to exert extra effort that was not associated with transactional and

laissez-faire leadership, 77.5% was associated with the transformational leadership

behaviors. The transformational leadership behavior components that were found to be

significant in the full model at the p < .05 level, were idealized influence-attributed,

idealized influence-behavior, and individualized consideration. The transactional

leadership behavior of contingent reward was also significant at the p < .05 level, as was

laissez-faire leadership.

The predictive value of individualized consideration, idealized influence-

attributed, idealized influence-behavior, contingent reward, and laissez-faire was seen in

the all-possible subsets regression. For the five-behavior model, these components were

the best predictors of willingness to exert extra effort with an adjusted R2 of .763. The









best one-behavior model was individual consideration with an adjusted R2 of .650. The

best two-behavior model was individual consideration and idealized influence-attributed

with an adjusted R2 of .721. The best three-behavior model was individual consideration,

idealized influence-attributed, and laissez-faire with an adjusted R2 of .745. The best

four-behavior model was individual consideration, idealized influence-attributed, laissez-

faire, and contingent reward with an adjusted R2 of .757.

The full and reduced model regression and the all-possible subsets regression

indicate that individual consideration was the strongest predictor of professional staff

members' willingness to exert extra effort. Bass (1985) discussed individualized

consideration in terms of the leader continuously assisting followers in developing the

followers' full potential and the leader focusing on the needs of each follower as an

individual. Therefore, although individualized consideration was not found as a

significant predictor of the other outcome variables, it is consistent with the Full Range of

Leadership model that it would serve as a significant predictor for willingness to exert

extra effort.

Gender and Perception of Leadership Style

This study utilized independent samples t-test in examining how deans' leadership

behaviors were perceived depending on either the dean's gender or the participant's

gender. The findings indicate that there was no significant difference in how male and

female deans of students were rated overall by their professional staff members and that

there was no significant difference in the way male and female professional staff

members rated their deans. These findings are consistent with those of Maher (1997) that









found there were no differences between men and women leaders in displaying

transformational behaviors.

Other studies have found that women tend to be more transformational than their

male counterparts (Bass, 1999). Bass (1999) speculated that the findings from studies

that found women tend to be more transformational examined organizations dominated

by males. In these situations, women may have had to be better leaders than their male

counterparts to attain the same leadership positions. Bass (1999) stated that more studies

needed to be done to examine what happens when women are in the majority. For this

study, female deans were a slight majority at 53.9%. Therefore, this study may indicate

that that the finding of previous research that females are more transformational does not

hold true when women are in the majority.

Implications for Student Affairs

The results of this study suggest that professional staff members working within a

dean of students office, or its equivalent, are more willing to exert extra effort, have

higher levels of satisfaction with the dean of students, and view the dean's leadership as

more effective when the dean utilizes transformational leadership behaviors more

frequently than transactional leadership behaviors. While the study may not be entirely

conclusive, the results are consistent with the theoretical prediction of Bass and Avolio's

(1997) Full Range of Leadership model. The model predicts that leaders who are more

transformational and less transactional are more effective as leaders and more satisfying

to their followers (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Where the results differ from the theoretical

prediction of the model is on the predictive value of the transactional behavior of

contingent reward. The findings indicate that contingent reward is a stronger predictor of








the outcome variables of leader effectiveness, willingness to exert extra effort, and

satisfaction with the leader than the model would have predicted.

The results have implications for student affairs since using effective leadership

practices improves the work experience of subordinates (Daft, 1999; Fiedler, 1974;

Hersey & Blanchard, 1988; Nahavandi, 1997; Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Stogdill,1974).

Employee satisfaction has been found to be a key indicator of the total quality of an

organization, and low employee moral negatively impacts many areas of an organization

(Tuttle, 1994). Malaney and Osit (1998) indicated that low student affairs staff moral

will spill over into the staffs work with students, producing student dissatisfaction with

the student affairs staff. Since professional student affair staff members within a dean of

students office are often on the front lines, interacting with students on a daily basis, their

satisfaction with their dean is a key variable for providing high quality services to

students.

Deans of students' professional staff members' willingness to exert extra effort is

also a key component of an effective dean of students office. Long hours and stressful

conditions are common characteristics of student affairs work (Barr, 1990; Carpenter,

1990). Professional staff members who are willing to exert extra effort are more likely to

effectively meet the challenges associated with student affairs work and increase the

organizational quality of the office. Having professional staff members willing to exert

extra effort is also important to the productivity of a dean of students office at a time

when state legislatures are demanding that institutions be more cost-effective and rely

less on state support (Arnone, 2004).









Through improving the work experience of their professional staff members and

increasing their professional staff members' willingness to exert extra effort, deans of

students that employ a transformational leadership style can improve the student affairs

program at their institutions. Bass and Avolio (1998) found that transformational

leadership can be developed within individuals through a leadership development

program they refer to as the "Full Range of Leadership Development." It is a

comprehensive training program that works with participants in improving their

leadership behavior profile and with dealing with the obstacles to changing their

leadership behavior (Bass and Avolio, 1998). This type of leadership development

program may assist deans of students in becoming more transformational in their

leadership, which would improve the work experience of their professional staff

members. Therefore, this type of leadership program could be developed for deans of

students at public research institutions.

Recommendations for Future Research

The findings of this study support the existence of the basic theoretical prediction

of Bass and Avolio's (1997) Full Range of Leadership model within the dean of students

offices at public research universities. However, the study is not conclusive and suggests

a number of areas for future research.

1. The current study was limited to deans of students at public research
universities in the southeast. Before the findings can be generalized to the
dean of students population as a whole, it is recommended that the study be
duplicated with institutions in other Carnegie Classifications, with private
institutions, and with institutions in other parts of the country.

2. A key to improving leadership effectiveness is identifying characteristics of
subordinates, organizational environment, and work tasks that neutralize or
enhance leadership behaviors (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Therefore, it is








recommended that research be done on the characteristics of the student
affairs work that may neutralize or enhance transformational leadership.

3. A comprehensive search of the literature revealed very limited studies on the
leadership behavior of deans of students or on what type of leadership is
effective within a dean of students office. Research to examine these areas
could prove valuable to student affairs practitioners.

4. This study did not attempt to examine how perceptions differ between
transformational and transactional deans of students. Future research could
focus on what transformational deans and transactional deans believe they
ought to be doing in differing circumstances.

5. Future research focusing on the relationship between transformational
leadership and outcomes beyond those measured by the MLQ would be
valuable. Included in this research could be a measure of job satisfaction.

6. Research suggest that transformational leadership can be learned (Bass &
Avolio, 1998). Future research employing a pre-test and post-test design
around a transformational leadership development program for deans of
students could be helpful.














APPENDIX A
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
















@ UNIVERSITY OF

0FLORIDA


Inslilutional Re ievv Board


Mr. Richard A. Barth
155 Tigert Hall
Campus


9XA Psycholugy Bldg.
POBo\ 112250
Gadincsllc. FL 32611-2250
Phone. (352) 392-0433
Fax (352) 392-9234
E-mail !rb2aiull edu
http. "rp il edt'irb ':rb02


\0'


FROM:


C. Michael Levy, PhD, Chair
University of Florida
Institutional Review Board 02


SUBJECT: Approval of Protocol #2003-U-263


TITLE:


Leadership Behaviors Among Deans of Students at Public Research Universities in the
Southeast


SPONSOR: Unfunded


I am pleased to advise you that the University of Florida Institutional Review Board has recommended
approval of this protocol. Based on its review, the UFIRB determined that this research presents no
more than minimal risk to participants. Given your protocol, it is essential that you obtain signed
documentation of informed consent from each participant. Enclosed is the dated, IRB-approved
informed consent to be used when recruiting participants for the research.

It is essential that each of your participants sign a copy of your approved informed I
consent that bears the IRB stamp and expiration date. I

If you wish to make any changes to this protocol, including the need to increase the number of
participants authorized, you must disclose your plans before you implement them so that the Board can
assess their impact on your protocol. In addition, you must report to the Board any unexpected
complications that affect your participants.

If you have not completed this protocol by 10-Mar-2004, please telephone our office (392-0433), and
we will discuss the renewal process with you. It is important that you keep your Department Chair
informed about the status of ,his research protocol.



CML:dl


'quai Opporti ny/A Affnnnat Amlon Ir.nston




Full Text
4-12 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Willingness to
Exert Extra Effort
69
vi


72
For laissez-faire leadership, there was no significant difference in the mean score
for all deans as perceived by male participants (M= .884, SD = .806) and female
participants (M .932, SD = .867) with t{94) = -0.275 and p = .784. There was no
significant difference between the mean scores for male deans (M= .942, SD = .847) and
female deans (M = .875, SD = .834) as perceived by all participants with /(94) = 0.391,
and p = .697. There was no significant difference between the mean scores for male
deans (M= 1.14, SD = .929) and female deans (M= .732, SD = .767) as perceived by
female participants with /(53) = 1.774, and p = .082. There was no significant difference
between the mean scores for male deans (M= .730, SD = .707) and female deans (M =
1.125 SZ) = .913 ) as perceived by male participants with t(39) = -1.557. and p = .128.
There was no significant difference in the mean scores for female deans as perceived by
male participants (M= 1.125, SD = .913) and female participants (M= .732, SD = .766)
with t{42) = 1.525, and p = .135. There was no significant difference in the mean scores
for male deans as perceived by male participants (M= .730, SD = .707) and female
participants (M= 1.14, SD = .929) with t(50) = -1.776, and p .082.
The findings imply that there is no significant relationship between gender and the
transformational leadership behavior, transactional leadership behavior, or laissez-faire
leadership of deans of students as perceived by their professional staff members.
Summary
A total of 137 surveys were mailed to professional staff members working in a
dean of students office at 38 public institutions of higher education classified as either
Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive or Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive in
the 2000 Carnegie Classification (Carnegie Foundation, 2000) located in the southeastern


29
of transformational leaders to obtain performance beyond basic expectations of followers
has been labeled the augmentation hypothesis (Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990).
Bass (1985) viewed the transactional leader as one who operates within the
existing system, tends to avoid risk, focuses on time constraints and efficiency, and
prefers process over substance for maintaining control. The transactional leader fulfills
the needs of followers in exchange for performance that meets basic expectations. A
transactional leader is most likely to be effective in a predictable and stable environment
where measuring current performance against prior performance is the most successful
strategy (Bass, 1985, 1998).
Bass (1985) characterized the transformational leader as one who seeks new ways
of working, seeks opportunities in the face of risk, prefers effective answers to efficient
answers, and is less likely to support the status quo. The transformational leader attempts
to shape and create environmental circumstances as opposed to merely reacting to them
(Avolio & Bass, 1988). He or she will use transactional strategies when appropriate, but
will also motivate by appealing to followers ideals and moral values and challenge them
to think about problems in new ways. The transformational leader raises the level of
intellectual awareness of the followers about the importance of valued outcomes and
motivates followers beyond their own self-interest for the sake of the organization (Bass,
1985).
The Full Range of Leadership Model
Bass (1985) operationalized the concept of transformational and transactional
leadership by developing a leadership behavior model that he later refined with Bruce
Avolio and is referred to as the Full Range of Leadership Model (Bass & Avolio, 1994;


51
Research questions 2, 3, and 4 employed multiple regression analyses to evaluate
the degree of relationship between each dependent variable (willingness to exert extra
effort, leadership effectiveness, and satisfaction with the leader) and the multiple
independent variables (transformation, transactional, and laissez-faire behaviors). SPSS
and SAS statistical software was utilized to run standard multiple regressions with the
composite independent variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
and laissez-faire leadership. Further analyses focusing on the component behaviors that
comprise the composite independent variables were conducted using SAS multiple
regression for full and reduced models and all-possible subsets.
Research question 5 utilized independent-samples t-tests to examine whether
there was a relationship between gender and the perception of transformational leadership
behavior, transactional leadership behavior, or laissez-faire leadership behavior.
Human Subjects
All respondents of the study were assured of confidentiality in the handling and
reporting of results. No adverse affects were foreseeable by participating or refusing to
participate in the study; therefore, the risk to human subjects was considered to be
negligible. Approval to proceed with this study was secured through the Institutional
Review Board of the University of Florida before participants were contacted.


80
ineffective by their professional staff members than deans that rarely display such
behavior.
Further analyses were performed on the outcome variable of leader effectiveness
using SAS full and reduced model regression and SAS all possible subsets regression.
These analyses used the component behaviors of transformational and transactional
leadership to examine which component behaviors were having the strongest influence
on predicting leader effectiveness. While the full and reduced model regression did find
that the transformational leadership components significantly added to the predictive
accuracy of leader effectiveness, the only transformational leadership behavior
component that was found to be significant in the full model at thep < .05 level, was
Idealized Influence Attributed. The transactional leadership behavior of contingent
reward was also significant at the p < .05 level, as was laissez-faire leadership.
The significant predictive value of idealized influence-attributed and contingent
reward was also seen in the all-possible subsets regression. For the one-behavior model,
idealized influence-attributed was the best predictor of leader effectiveness with an
adjusted R" of .693. For the two-behavior model, idealized influence-attributed and
contingent reward were the best predictors of leader effectiveness with an adjusted R2 of
.771.
The findings of the full and reduced model regression and the all-possible subsets
indicate that, for the participants in this study, the transactional behavior of contingent
reward was a stronger predictor of leader effectiveness than several of the
transformational leadership component behaviors. This finding is not altogether
unexpected since Bass (1985, 1998) states that in general the best leaders are both


48
Square Residuals (RMSR), and the Chi-square test results. The fit measures and the chi-
square tests improved as the model progressed from a one-factor to a nine-factor solution
Variable
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. Attributed
2.56
.84
.86
Charisma
2.69
.90
.87
2. Idealized
2.64
.85
.79
.87
Influence
2.71
.89
.83
.89
3. Inspirational
2.64
.87
.85
.86
.91
Motivation
2.69
.91
.85
.90
.91
4. Intellectual
2.51
.86
.76
.84
.85
.90
Stimulation
2.50
.86
.75
.84
.85
.88
5. Individualized
2.66
.93
.82
.82
.87
.84
.90
Consideration
2.62
.94
.83
.86
.88
.84
.90
6. Contingent
2.20
.89
.68
.69
.73
.70
.75
.87
Reward
2.04
.94
.51
.58
.62
.60
.62
.86
7. Management-
1.75
.77
-.12
-.03
-.10
-.08
-.12
.03
.74
by-Exception
(Active)
1.71
.81
-.10
-.08
-.05
-.05
-.11
.21
.73
8. Management-
1.11
.82
-.54
-.54
-.55
-.52
-.54
-.34
.28
.82
by-Exception
(Passive)
1.17
.88
-.54
-.59
-.50
-.41
-.51
-.07
.44
.83
9. Laissez-Faire
0.89
.74
-.53
-.54
-.51
-.47
-.49
-.29
.18
.74
.74
0.99
.88
-.57
-.50
-.50
-.40
-.50
-.07
.40
.82
.87
10. Extra Effort
2.60
1.16
.68
.69
.73
.69
.74
.62
.03
-.36
-.34
.91
2.51
1.14
.71
.75
.78
.75
.82
.63
-.01
-.36
-.35
.86
11. Effectiveness
2.62
.72
.51
.44
.46
.41
.44
.32
-.14
-.35
-.41
.45
.91
2.66
.88
.62
.48
.52
.40
.53
.26
-.04
-.41
-.45
.48
.87
12. Satisfaction
2.57
1.28
.25
.22
.21
.18
.27
.19
.06
-.21
-.25
.23
.15
.94
2.38
1.28
.35
.18
.22
.08
.24
.11
.18
-.17
-.19
.19
.40
.93
Note. Each factor was rated on the 5-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 4(frequently, if not always). Alpha
coefficients are reported in boldface along the diagonal. First values in each column show correlations from
the validation set of samples (N=l,394 after listwise deletion) and second values in each column show
correlations from the cross-validation set of samples (N= 1,490 after listwise deletion). Reproduced by
special permission of the Publisher, MIND GARDEN, Inc., 1690 Woodside Road #202, Redwood City,
CA 90461 USA www.mindgarden.com from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research by
Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J Avolio. Copyright 1995, 2000 by Bernard M Bass and Bruce J Avolio. All
rights reserved. Further reproduction is prohibited without Publishers written permission.


Office of the Vice President
for Student Affairs
155 Tigert Hall
PO Box 113250
Gainesville. FL 32611-3250
(352) 392-1265
May 2. 2003
Dear:
1 am a fellow student affairs practitioner conducting research on the leadership behaviors
of deans of students at public research universities in the southeast. I am seeking your
participation in this study because your input regarding perceptions of the Dean of
Students at your institution is extremely important to the results of this research. The
information gathered will not only help complete my doctoral dissertation, but will also
contribute useful information furthering research on leadership in student affairs.
Your responses to the enclosed questionnaire will be kept in the strictest confidence and
results of the study will be reported in the aggregate so that no individual can be
identified. There is an identification number on the questionnaire for mailing purposes,
but your name will not be recorded on the questionnaire and any linkage between your
name and the identification number will be kept secure.
After you have completed the demographic information sheet and both sides of the
questionnaire please sign the consent form. It will only take you about 15 minutes to fill
out this information. You can return the materials in the enclosed postage-paid reply
envelope.
Thank you for taking the time to contribute to this research. If you have any questions
regarding the study you can e-mail me at lininlv" ufl.edu or call me at (352) 392-1265.
Sincerely,
Rick Barth
Doctoral Candidate
Interim Associate Vice President
University of Florida
98


36
1995), and organizational citizenship (Koh et al., 1995). It has also been found that
individuals can be trained to exhibit transformational leadership behavior (Avolio, 1999;
Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1997; Shea & Howell, 1999).
The large amount of research studies done on transformational leadership which
appear in a broad range of scholarly publications suggest that it is one of the most
important contemporary leadership topics. Overall, the amount of research on
transformational leadership that indicates it has a consistent, reliable and positive
relationship to effective measures is impressive. The following section analyzes possible
contingencies and limitations.
Contingencies and Limitations of the Full Range of Leadership Model
Transformational leadership theory is moderated by situational variables
including level of the leader, the leaders personality, type of organization, the
organizational environment, characteristics of the followers, and type of criterion used to
determine effectiveness (Bass, 1985; Lowe et al., 1996). Transformational leaders are
more likely to arise in times of crises or of major change, and in organic types of
organizations that are not highly structured with routine tasks and functions (Bass, 1985).
Bass (1998) states that organizational turbulence is a condition that often supports the
emergence of transformational leadership in contrast to transactional leadership, which
is likely to emerge and be relatively effective when leaders face a stable, predictable
environment (p. 52).
Bass (1985) speculated that the effectiveness of transformational leadership
behavior may be contingent on the type of tasks to be performed. For example, Bycio,
Hackett, and Allen (1995) found that transactional behaviors are very important in


107
Bass, B. M Waldman. D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational
leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group and Organizational Studies, 12,
73-87.
Bender, B. E. (1980). Job satisfaction in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 18, 2-9.
Bensimon, E. M., Neuman, A., & Birnbaum, R. (1989). Making sense of administrative
leadership: the "L word in higher education (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Rep. No. 1). Washington, DC: George Washington University.
Blimling, G. S, & Whitt, E. J. (1999). Good practice in student affairs:
Principles to foster student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bonnen, J. T. (1998). The land grant idea and the evolving outreach university. In R. M.
Learner & L. K. Simon (Eds.), University community collaborations for the
twenty-first century: Outreach to scholarship for youth and families (pp. 25-70).
New York: Garland Publishing.
Boudreau, T. E. (1998). Universitas: The social restructuring of American undergraduate
education. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York:
Harper & Row.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate.
Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation.
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998).
Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America's research
universities. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York.
Brown, R. W. (1926). Dean Briggs. NY: Harper & Brothers.
Brubacher, J. S & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of
American colleges and universities (4th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Bums. J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Basss
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478.
Caple, R. B. (1998). To mark the beginning: A social history of college student affairs.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.


mfnd garden
MLQ Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire
Duplication Set
(Leader and Rater Forms, and scoring
for MLQ 5x-Short)
Permission to reproduce either leader or rater forms for
up to 150 copies in one year from date of purchase:
March 21,2003
bv Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio
Distributed by Mind Garden
1690 Woodside Road Suite 202, Redwood City California 94061 USA
Phone: (650) 261-3500 Fax: (650)261-3505
mindgarden@msn.com
www.mindgarden.com
Copyright 1995 by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio. All rights reserved.
It is your legal responsibility to compensate the copyright holder of this work for any reproduction in any medium. If any
part of this Work (e.g., scoring, items, etc.) is put on an electronic or other media, you agree to remove this Work from that
media at the end of this license. The copyright holder has agreed to grant permission to reproduce the above number of
copies of this work for one year from the date of purchase for non-commercial use only. Non-commercial use means that
you will not receive payment for distributing this document If you need to make additional copies than the above stated,
please contact Mind Gardcn.
94


31
Inspirational motivation is characterized by behaviors that provide meaning,
challenging goals, a sense of vision and mission, and belief that followers can reach goals
they may have originally thought too difficult to achieve. Optimism and enthusiasm are
expressed by the leader in getting followers to become engaged in envisioning attractive
future states (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994).
Intellectual stimulation is characterized by leader behavior that questions
underlying assumptions, reframes problems, and finds creative solutions to difficult
problems. This behavior develops the potential for followers to solve problems in the
future and encourages creative thought (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1997).
Individual consideration is a transformational behavior that focuses on the growth
and development of each follower, providing them with new opportunities to learn, and
giving them personalized attention. The leader coaches, mentors, and teaches in an
attempt to help followers reach the established goals (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1997).
Components of Transactional Leadership
Transactional leadership behavior is expressed by the rewarding or disciplining of
the follower depending on the adequacy of the followers performance (Bass, 1998). The
model breaks transactional leadership into the two components of contingent reward and
management-by-exception.
Contingent reward is characterized by the leader stressing an exchange where the
leader assigns or gets agreement on what needs to be done and promises rewards or
actually rewards others in exchange for satisfactorily carrying out the assignment (Bass,
1998, p. 6). Reward is contingent upon the effort expended by the follower and
performance level achieved (Bass, 1998).


75
extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
5. Is there a relationship between gender and the transformational leadership
behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership
behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
The study examined the leadership behaviors of deans of students at public
institutions of higher education classified as either Doctoral/Research Universities-
Extensive or Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive in the 2000 Carnegie
Classification (Carnegie Foundation, 2000) located in the southeastern states of Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida. Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The total number of institutions representing this
population is 45. Five institutions in this population did not have an equivalent position
to a dean of students for the purpose of this study and two institutions had the position
vacant at the time of the study. Therefore, 38 institutions were used in the study.
The study utilized Bass and Avolios (1995) Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short) to assess transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire leadership behaviors of deans of students as perceived by their professional
staff member subordinates. A researcher-developed demographic sheet was used to
obtain the age, educational level, and gender of the participants and of the deans that
were evaluated. Statistical analyses were conducted using both SPSS and SAS statistical
software.
Summary and Discussion of Findings
This study assessed the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership behaviors of deans of students using Bass and Avolios (1997) Full Range of


UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA
Institutional Review Board 98A Psychology Bldg.
PO Box 112250
Gainesville, FL 32611-2250
Phone: (352) 392-0433
Fax: (352) 392-9234
E-mail: irb2(5uil edu
http Vrgp ufl edu'irb irb02
TO: Mr. Richard A. Barth
155 Tigert Hall
Campus
FROM: C. Michael Levy, PhD, Chair
University of Florida
Institutional Review Board 02
SUBJECT: Approval of Protocol #2003-U-263
TTTLE: Leadership Behaviors Among Deans of Students at Public Research Universities in the
Southeast
SPONSOR: Unfunded
1 am pleased to advise you that the University of Florida Institutional Review Board has recommended
approval of this protocol. Based on its review, the UFIRB determined that this research presents no
more than minimal risk to participants. Given your protocol, it is essential that you obtain signed
documentation of informed consent from each participant. Enclosed is the dated, IRB-approved
informed consent to be used when recruiting participants for the research.
It is essential that each of your participants sign a copy of your approved informed
consent that bears the IRB stamp and expiration date.
If you wish to make any changes to this protocol, including the need to increase the number of
participants authorized, you must disclose your plans before you implement them so that the Board can
assess their impact on your protocol. In addition, you must report to the Board any unexpected
complications that affect your participants.
If you have not completed this protocol by 10-Mar-2004, please telephone our office (392-0433), and
we will discuss the renewal process with you. It is important that you keep your Department Chair
informed about the status of this research protocol.
CML:dl
Equal Opportunity/Affinnativc Action Ir.stilution
92


45
leadership components are measured by four interconnected items that are as low in
correlation as possible with items measuring the other eight components (Bass & Avolio,
1997). The items that measure the individual leadership components and outcome
behaviors are as follows:
Transformational Behaviors:
Idealized Influence-Attributed is measured by items 10, 18, 21, and 25.
Idealized Influence-Behavior is measured by items 6, 14, 23, and 34.
Inspirational Motivation is measured by items 13, 26, 36, and 9.
Intellectual Stimulation is measured by items 2, 8, 30, and 32.
Individual Consideration is measured by items 15, 19, 29. and 31.
Transactional Behaviors:
Contingent Reward is measured by items 1, 11, 16, and 35.
Management-by-Exception (Active) is measured by items 4, 22, 24, and 27.
Management-by-Exception (Passive) is measured by items 3, 12, 17, and 20.
Laissez-Faire (Nonleadership) Behaviors:
Laissez-Faire is measured by items 5, 7, 28, and 33.
Outcome Behaviors:
Willingness to Exert Extra Effort is measured by items 39, 42, and 44.
Leadership Effectiveness is measured by items 37. 40, 43, and 45.
Satisfaction with Leader is measured by items 38 and 41.
The MLQ requires a ninth grade reading ability and takes approximately 15 minutes
to complete. The respondents are asked to rate their supervisor, judging how frequently
each statement in the item fits the supervisor. Numerical values are given for each of the


24
influence (p. 69). A laissez-faire leader is permissive and allows followers to do what
they want with minimum direction or discipline (Megginson et al., 1989).
Lewin et al. (1939) concluded that the democratic leadership style was the most
productive of the three. Work continued in the democratic environment when the leader
was not present implying group cohesiveness and motivation. The lowest productivity
was found with the laissez-faire environment in which worker frustration was high.
Work proceeded intensely in the autocratic environment as long as the leader was
present. However, work stopped when the leader was not present and worker aggression
was prevalent in this environment.
Two of the better-known behavioral leadership studies are the Ohio State Studies
and the Michigan Studies. These studies, like most of the behavioral studies, focused on
identifying the leaders orientation toward the employee, the task to be completed, or a
combination of the two (Megginson et al, 1989).
In studies conducted mostly in factories, researchers at Ohio State University
identified two types, or two dimensions, of behavior on the part of supervisors: initiating
structure and consideration (Daft, 1999). Consideration is an employee relation
oriented type that is identified by characteristics such as being friendly, considerate,
supportive, open and consultative. Leader behavior focuses on a concern for employees
needs and the leader strives to create an environment of mutual respect and trust (Daft,
1999). Initiating structure types are task oriented and are prone to be directive, to
coordinate, to plan and to problem solve. Leader behavior focuses on defining and
organizing what employees should be doing to maximize output (Kreitner & Kinicki,
1995). The Ohio State researchers found that the best results were obtained when leaders


81
transformational and transactional, and that contingent reward behavior plays an
important role in effective leadership. However, it is not what the Full Range of
Leadership model would have predicted and it runs counter to much of the research on
the Full Range of Leadership model (Bass, 1998; Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990;
Howell & Avolio, 1993).
The findings on contingent reward suggest that there is something about the
nature of the work within a dean of students office that supports the transactional
behavior of contingent reward being a fairly strong predictor of leader effectiveness.
Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999) speculated that contingent reward could be the foundation
through which leaders build trust and structure the professional development expectations
of their followers. Studies that examined factors contributing to attrition in student
affairs work found that the work is often associated with long hours and stressful
conditions and that professional staff members are often dissatisfied with professional
development opportunities (Barr, 1990; Carpenter, 1990; Bender, 1980). Therefore, one
possible reason that contingent reward emerged as a stronger predictor of leader
effectiveness than expected is that it is effective in developing trust in a stressful work
environment and in clarifying professional development opportunities for professional
staff members within a dean of students office.
Satisfaction with the Leader as Measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
The initial analysis for examining whether there was a relationship between the
transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-
faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff
members' perception of satisfaction with the leader as measured by the Multifactor


28
each other to a greater sense of purpose and to aspirations that are noble and transcending
(Burns, 1978). Burns work led to the development of several new approaches to the
study of what is referred to as transformational leadership (Daft, 1999). The term is used
to contrast this new leadership with the older, transactional leadership approach.
Burns (1978) defined the transforming leader as one who recognizes and exploits
an existing need or demand of a potential follower. But, beyond that, the transforming
leader looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages
the full person of the follower (Burns, 1978, p. 4). Burns (1978) integrated Maslows
(1954) theory of human needs and Kohlbergs (1981) theory of moral development to
build his definition of transforming leadership and to examine moral leadership, which he
views as going beyond simply satisfying the followers wants or desires to being
actually instrumental in producing the social change that will satisfy both the followers
and leaders authentic needs (p. 4).
Motivated by Burns development of transformational leadership, Bass (1985)
sought to investigate what type of action or strategies leaders use in transforming
followers toward achieving organizational goals. He views the constructs of transactional
and transformational leadership as complementary. Therefore, transformational
leadership behaviors are likely to be ineffective in the absence of a transactional
relationship between leader and follower (Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim, 1987). According
to Bass (1985), transformational leadership augments transactional management to
achieve higher levels of follower performance with the primary difference residing in the
process by which the leader motivates followers and in the types of goals set. The ability


6
Statement of the Problem
Institutions of higher education currently face a landscape that is changing at an
unprecedented rate (Lucas. 2000; Blimling & Whitt. 1999). Along with the challenge of
this constant change, public institutions find themselves confronting both a decrease in
public confidence and an increase of external criticism over their perceived failure to
actively engage students in the teaching and learning process (Blimling & Whitt, 1999;
NASULGC, 2001). In addressing the criticism questioning the responsiveness and
relevance of public institutions, reports such as Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A
Blueprint for Americas Research Universities (The Boyer Commission on Educating
Undergraduates in the Research University [Boyer Commission], 1998) and Returning to
Our Roots: The Student Experience, by the Kellogg Commission (NASULGC, 1997)
emphasize the need for institutions to change the way they engage their undergraduate
student population by making undergraduates and their learning a higher priority.
In calling research universities' record of educating undergraduates one of failure,
the Boyer Commission (1998) stated:
In a context of increasing stress declining governmental support, increased
costs, mounting outside criticism, and growing consumerism from students and
their families universities too often continue to behave with complacency,
indifference, or forgetfulness toward that constituency whose support is vital to
the academic enterprise. Baccalaureate students are the second-class citizens who
are allowed to pay taxes but are barred from voting, the guests at the banquet who
pay their share of the tab but are given leftovers, (p. 37)
This criticism is not new, as scholars and commentators, such as Ernest Boyer and Page
Smith, have called for reform in undergraduate education for many years (Boyer, 1990;
Smith, 1990; Boudreau, 1998). But the criticism has intensified as higher education has


37
situations where safety is a major concern. Bass (1998) has also stated that where safety
is a priority, management-by-exception active may play a more prominent role in
determining organizational effectiveness than it does in other situations.
In terms of differences between a leader's gender, Druskat (1994), Bass, Avolio,
and Atwater (1996), Carless (1998), and Bass (1998) noted that women tend to display
transformational behaviors more often than men. This is in contrast to a study by Maher
(1997) finding that there are no differences between men and women leaders in
displaying transformational behaviors. According to Bass (1998) the differences that
were found may be explained by the fact that women are socialized to display more
nurturing, caring and developmental behaviors than men, and these behaviors are
essential elements or transformational leadership. Maher (1997) argued that any potential
differences that may have been found may not be universal and can be attributed to
situational or contextual variables.
The Dean of Students
In 1870, Harvard's President Eliot appointed Professor Ephraim Gurney as the
first college dean (Rentz, 1996; Brubaker & Rudy, 1997; Caple, 1998). Although
Gurneys responsibilities remained primarily academic, he assumed responsibility for
student discipline previously handled by President Eliot. Twenty years later. Harvard
divided the deans position into two offices essentially creating an academic dean and a
student affairs dean (Caple, 1998). An instructor of English, LeBaron Russell Briggs,
took on the nonacademic responsibilities related to students. For this reason, he is
generally considered the first dean of students (Rentz. 1996; Brubaker & Rudy, 1997;
Rhatigan, 2000). In his book about Dean Briggs, Brown (1926) wrote that Briggs goals


REFERENCES
Altbach. P. G. (2001). The American academic model in comparative perspective. In P.
G. Altbach. P. J. Gumport, & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), In defense of American
higher education (pp. 11-37). Baltimore. MD: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Ambler, D. A. (1993). Developing internal management structures. In M. J. Barr &
Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 107-120).
San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass.
Amone, M. (2004, January 16). State spending on college drops for the first time in 11
years [Government & Politics]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A24.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma and beyond.
In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging
leadership vistas (pp. 29-49). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Avolio, B. J.. & Bass, B. M. (1991). The full-range of leadership development.
Binghamton, NY: State University of New York, Center for Leadership Studies.
Avolio, B. J.. Bass. B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire:
Technical report. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441 -
462.
Avolio, B. J.. Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to
the bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 219-227.
Avolio, B. J., Waldman. D. A., & Einstein, W. O. (1988). Transformational leadership in
a management game simulation: Impacting the bottom line. Group and
Organization Studies, 13, 59-80.
105


65
Table 4-8 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Satisfaction with the
Leader Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors
Behavior
B
SE
t
P
Reduced3
CR
.760
.089
8.54
.0001*
MBE-A
-.022
.076
-0.29
.7713
MBE-P
.052
.097
0.53
.5974
LF
-.420
.098
-4.31
.0001*
Fullb
II-A
.467
.091
5.11
.0001*
II-B
.216
.109
1.99
.0496*
IM
-.104
.097
-1.07
.2875
IS
.107
.131
0.82
.4159
IC
-.002
.127
-0.01
.9895
CR
.204
.102
2.00
.0486*
MBE-A
-.035
.062
-0.56
.5739
MBE-P
.034
.079
0.43
.6671
LF
-.235
.081
-2.89
.0048*
Note.
an = 96. bn = 96.
R2 = .645. V = .802.
*p< .05.
Table 4-9 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Satisfaction with the Leader
Number
in Model
R2
Adjusted R2
Behaviors in Model
1
.722
.719
II-A
2
.757
.752
II-A, LF
3
.785
.778
II-A, II-B, LF
4
.798
.789
II-A, II-B, CR, LF
5
.800
.789
II-A, II-B, IM, CR, LF
6
.801
.788
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, CR. LF
7
.802
.786
II-A, II-B. IM. IS, CR. MBE-A, LF
8
.802
.784
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, CR, MBE-A, MBE-P, LF
9
.863
.849
II-A, II-B. IM, IS, IC, CR, MBE-A, MBE-P, LF
Note, n = 96.
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 examined whether there was a relationship between the
transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-
faire leadership behavior ot deans of students and their subordinate professional staff


43
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' satisfaction with
their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
4. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members willingness to exert
extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
5. Is there a relationship between gender and the transformational leadership
behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership
behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
Research Population
The population for this study was student affairs professional staff members
supervised by deans of students at public institutions of higher education classified as
either Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive or Doctoral/Research Universities-
Intensive in the 2000 Carnegie Classification (Carnegie Foundation. 2000) located in the
southeastern states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The total number
of institutions representing this population is 45. Five institutions in this population did
not have an equivalent position to a dean of students for the purpose of this study and two
institutions had the position vacant at the time of the study. Therefore, 38 institutions
were used in the study.
The population for the study was primarily identified through the institutions' web
sites and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators membership
directory. Institutions were contacted through e-mail and through telephone calls from
the researcher when information was not available through the institutions web site or
the membership directory.


44
The Instrument
The research instrument utilized in this study was the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1997). The MLQ was used to collect
data regarding the independent variables of transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, and laissez-faire leadership and the dependent variables of subordinate
perception of leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, and willingness to exert
extra effort.
The MLQ Form 5X was developed by Bass and Avolio to address the criticisms of
an earlier MLQ survey instrument designed by Bass (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Through the
use of confirmatory factor analysis, Avolio, Bass and Jung (1995) refined the original
MLQ into an instrument that better represented each leadership component within the
Full Range of Leadership model. Their findings from the validation and cross validation
studies resulted in the selection of the items for the MLQ Form 5X.
The MLQ Form 5X is a 45-item questionnaire using a Likert scale to measure leader
behaviors. Thirty-six of the items measure the independent variables of leadership
behaviors and nine items measure the dependent variables of outcome factors (Bass &
Avolio, 1997). The MLQ measures five transformational leadership components, three
transactional leadership components, and one nonleadership component. The
components for transformational leadership are: idealized influence-attributed, idealized
influence-behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration. The components for transactional leadership are: contingent reward,
management-by-exception-active and management-by-exception-passive. Laissez-faire
leadership is the nonleadership component (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Each of the


APPENDIX A
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL


90
recommended that research be done on the characteristics of the student
affairs work that may neutralize or enhance transformational leadership.
3. A comprehensive search of the literature revealed very limited studies on the
leadership behavior of deans of students or on what type of leadership is
effective within a dean of students office. Research to examine these areas
could prove valuable to student affairs practitioners.
4. This study did not attempt to examine how perceptions differ between
transformational and transactional deans of students. Future research could
focus on what transformational deans and transactional deans believe they
ought to be doing in differing circumstances.
5. Future research focusing on the relationship between transformational
leadership and outcomes beyond those measured by the MLQ would be
valuable. Included in this research could be a measure of job satisfaction.
6. Research suggest that transformational leadership can be learned (Bass &
Avolio, 1998). Future research employing a pre-test and post-test design
around a transformational leadership development program for deans of
students could be helpful.


14
Dean of Students
The dean of students is a full-time student affairs professional who performs
supervisory and managerial activities within the division of student affairs and who is not
the chief student affairs officer. The dean of students is responsible for several of the
student affairs functions found on university campuses (Sandeen, 1996). Deans of
students generally report directly to the chief student affairs officer with the title vice
president or vice chancellor (Ambler, 1993). Other titles used for individuals having the
responsibilities of the dean of students are director of student life and dean of student life.
For the purpose of this study, the title dean of students will be used to represent those
persons holding the position of dean of students, director of student life, or dean of
student life.
Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive
Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive are institutions that typically offer a
wide range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through
the doctorate. They award 50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15
disciplines (Carnegie Foundation, 2000).
Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive
Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive are institutions that typically offer a
wide range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through
the doctorate. They award at least ten doctoral degrees per year across three or more
disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall (Carnegie Foundation, 2000).


60
scores on the transformational leadership component behaviors. Therefore, a multiple
regression analysis using full and reduced models was calculated to examine the extent to
which the transformational leadership component behaviors added to the predictive
accuracy for the dependent variable of leader effectiveness when they are added to the
transactional component behaviors and laissez-faire behavior.
The transformational leadership components significantly added to the predictive
accuracy for the dependent variable of leadership effectiveness when they were added to
the components for transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership behavior. The F-
value was calculated at 9.88 withp < .05 and R increased by 8% when the
transformational components were added to the reduced model. In addition, it was found
that of the variance in leader effectiveness that was not associated with transactional and
laissez-faire leadership, 57% was associated with the transformational leadership
behaviors. Table 4-5 displays the unstandardized regression coefficients (B), the
standard errors (SE), the observed t values (/), and the significance levels (p) for the
component behaviors in the reduced model and the full model.
The component behaviors were analyzed using an all-possible subsets regression
with a R selection method to determine which groups of behaviors were the best
predictors of leader effectiveness. Table 4-6 displays the R2 and the adjusted R2 for the
best one-behavior model through the model that includes all nine behaviors. The highest
adjusted R2 was .851 for both the six-behavior model (II-A, II-B. IC, CR. MBE-A, LF)
and the seven-behavior model (II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR, MBE-A, LF). However, the four-
behavior model was close to being as strong as a predictor of leader effectiveness as the
six-behavior and seven-behavior models with an adjusted R2 of .846.


30
Bass & Avolio, 1997; Bass, 1998). The Full Range of Leadership Model contains three
classifications of leadership processes: (a) transformational, (b) transactional, and (c)
laissez-faire or non-leadership behavior (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass, 1998). The model
predicts that leaders who are more transformational and less transactional are more
effective as leaders and more satisfying to their followers (Bass & Avolio, 1997).
Components of Transformational Leadership
The first set of leadership behaviors in the full range of leadership model
identifies four distinct transformational leadership behaviors, called the Four Fs:
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1994, p. 3). According to Bass and Avolio (1994)
transformation leaders employ one or more of the Four Fs to achieve better results than
leaders that only exhibit transactional behavior.
Idealized influence is a transformational leadership behavior that results in leaders
being role models for the individuals they are leading. It is characterized by the leader
putting the followers needs above the leaders own personal needs, consistently
demonstrating high ethical standards, and using power only when necessary (Bass &
Avolio, 1994). Bass and Avolio (1997) divided idealized influence into idealized
influence-attributed and idealized influence-behavior. Idealized influence-attributed is
characterized by a leader who is risk-taker, makes followers feel good to be with him or
her, creates a sense of belongingness to the common cause, and cares about the interests
of the followers (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Idealized influence-behavior is characterized by
a leader who displays a high ethical and moral code, is a risk-taker, and has a strong
sense of mission (Bass, 1998).


16
Inspirational Motivation
Inspirational motivation is leadership that excites, arouses and inspires
subordinates in ways that increase optimism and pride (Bass. 1985, 1998). Inspirational
motivation provides meaning and challenge in the followers work. Followers are
involved in the creation of new futures through a shared vision. Expectations are clearly
communicated in such a way that followers are committed to jointly developed goals
(Bass & Avolio, 1994).
Intellectual Stimulation
Intellectual stimulation is a leadership behavior that encourages followers to
analyze problems and seek out innovative solutions. The leader that utilizes intellectual
stimulation provides subordinates with challenging new ideas and stimulates thinking in
new ways (Bass, 1985).
Laissez-Faire Leadership
Laissez-faire leadership is the most extreme form of passive leadership,
considered to be non-leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994). The leader avoids making
decisions and is inactive rather than reactive or proactive. The leader evades getting
involved when important issues arise and fails to provide assistance when requested. The
leader is not motivated or adequately skilled to perform duties (Bass. 1998).
Management-bv-Exception (Active)
Management-by-exception (active) is a contingent reinforcement behavior in
which the leader actively seeks deviations from standards and takes actions when
irregularities occur (Bass & Avolio. 1994). The leader shuns giving directions if old


9
outcome variables of subordinate satisfaction with the leader, subordinate perception of
leadership effectiveness, and subordinate willingness to exert extra effort.
Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:
1. To what extent do deans of students exhibit transformational, transactional, and
laissez-fair leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
2. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' perception of leader
effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater
Form (5X-Short)?
3. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members satisfaction with
their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
4. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members willingness to exert
extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
5. Is there a relationship between gender and the transformational leadership
behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership
behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
Theoretical Background
Leaders in public institutions face the challenge of how to lead at a time when
conditions are changing, public confidence is low, resources are tight, and options are
limited (NASULGC, 1997). Blimling and Whitt (1999) state that doing things the way
they have always been done is not an appropriate response for student affairs during this
period of reform in higher education. In facing the current challenges, there is a need for
visionary leadership within student affairs (Rogers. 1996). The authors of the report,


53
behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
Survey Responses
The population for this study was student affairs professional staff members
supervised by deans of students at public institutions of higher education classified as
either Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive or Doctoral/Research Universities-
Intensive in the 2000 Carnegie Classification (Carnegie Foundation, 2000) located in the
southeastern states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The total number
of institutions representing this population is 45. Five institutions in this population did
not have an equivalent position to a dean of students for the purpose of this study and two
institutions had the position vacant at the time of the study. Therefore, 38 institutions
were used in the study.
Survey packets were mailed to the professional staff members within the Dean of
Students Office or its equivalent at each of the 38 institutions in the study during the late
spring and early summer of 2003. For institutions that had four or fewer professional
staff members in the Dean of Students Office, survey packets were sent to each
professional staff member. For institutions that had over four professional staff members
in their Dean of Students Office, four staff members were randomly selected and the
survey packets sent to those four staff members.
The survey packet included a cover letter, an informed consent form, a copy of
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5x-Short), a demographic
information sheet, and a postage-paid return envelope. Twenty-one days after the initial
mailing a duplicate packet containing a reminder letter was sent to all members of the


49
(Bass & Avolio, 1997). Bass and Avolio (1997) stressed that the Goodness of Fit Index
of .91 for the full model exceeded the .90 cut-off criterion recommended in the literature
and that the Root Mean Square Residual of .04 of the full model satisfied the criterion
cut-off of less than .05 recommended by Joreskog and Sorbom (1989).
Table 3-3 Comparison of Overall Fit Measures Among Several Factor Models
Fit Measure
One-
Factor
Model
Two-
Factor
Model
Three-
Factor
Model
Five-
Factor
Model
Nine-Factor
Model
(Full Model)
Chi-Square/df
5674/594
(6859/594)
5260/593
(4258/593)
3529/591
(4229/591)
3341/584
(4126/584)
2394/558
(2967/558)
GFI
.75 (.66)
.77 (.81)
.86 (.81)
.86 (.82)
.91 (.88)
AGFI
.72 (.62)
.74 (.79)
.84 (.79)
.84 (.80)
.89 (.86)
RMSR
.07 (.08)
.08 (.07)
.05 (.07)
.05 (.07)
.04 (.05)
Note. First values based on validation set of samples (N=l,394). Values in parentheses are based on cross-
validation set of samples (N=l ,490). GF1 = Goodness of Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted GFI; RMSR = Root
Mean Square Residual. Reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, MIND GARDEN, Inc., 1690
Woodside Road #202, Redwood City, CA 90461 USA www.mindgarden.com from the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire for Research by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J Avolio. Copyright 1995,2000 by
Bernard M Bass and Bruce J Avolio. All rights reserved. Further reproduction is prohibited without
Publishers written permission.
One of the most comprehensive reviews of the MLQ to date was a meta-analysis
conducted by Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996). The researchers looked at
approximately 40 studies from a variety of countries, institutions, and organizational
levels. They concluded that the MLQ is a valid and reliable measure of transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
Data Collection
Each dean of students at the institutions involved in the study was sent a letter of
introduction from the researcher. The letter explained the study, provided a copy of the
MLQ for the dean's review, and provided the dean with the contact information for the
researcher and the researchers academic advisor.


71
female participants with (53) = -1.633, and= .108. There was no significant difference
between the mean scores for male deans {M 2.78, SD = .567) and female deans (M=
2.71, SD = .703) as perceived by male participants with (39) = 0.380, andp = .706.
There was no significant difference in the mean scores for female deans as perceived by
male participants (M= 2.71, SD = .703) and female participants (M= 2.92, SD = .684)
with (42) = -0.969, andp = .338. There was no significant difference in the mean scores
for male deans as perceived by male participants (M= 2.78, SD = .567) and female
participants (M= 2.61, SD = .726) with (50) = 0.971, andp = .336.
For transactional leadership, there was no significant difference in the mean score
for all deans as perceived by male participants (M= 1.70, SD = .410) and female
participants (M- 1.67, SD = .402) with (94) = 0.382 andp = .703. There was no
significant difference between the mean scores for male deans (M= 1.74, SD = .334) and
female deans (M= 1.60, SD = .466) as perceived by all participants with (94) = 1.637,
and p = .106. There was no significant difference between the mean scores for male
deans (M= 1.75, SD = .296) and female deans (M= 1.58, SD = .475) as perceived by
female participants with (53) = 1.56, and p = .126. There was no significant difference
between the mean scores for male deans (M= 1.73 SD = .377) and female deans (M=
1.64, SD = .464) as perceived by male participants with (39) = .702, and p = .487. There
was no significant difference in the mean scores for female deans as perceived by male
participants (M= 1.64, SD = .464) and female participants (M= 1.58, SD = .475) with
(42) = 0.388, and p = .700. There was no significant difference in the mean scores for
male deans as perceived by male participants (M= 1.73, SD = .376) and female
participants (M= 1.75, SD = .296) with (50) = 0.178 andp = .859.


MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE
SAMPLE ITEMS
Item Number
9.
Talks optimistically about the future
0 12 3 4
(Inspirational Motivation / Transformational)
15.
Spends time teaching and coaching
0 12 3 4
(Individualized Consideration / Transformational)
24.
Keeps track of all mistakes
0 12 3 4
(Management-by-Exception Active / Transactional)
38.
Gets me to do more than I expected to do
0 12 3 4
(Extra Effort / Outcomes)
45.
Leads a group that is effective
0 12 3 4
(Effectiveness / Outcomes)
Reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, MIND GARDEN INC., 1690
Woodside Road #202, Redwood City, CA 94061 USA www.mindgarden.com from the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J.
Avolio. Copyright 1995, 2000 by Bernard M Bass and Bruce J Avolio. All rights
reserved. Further reproduction is prohibited without the Publishers written consent.
104


56
subordinates using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short).
Table 4-3 provides the means and standard deviations calculated for each of the
leadership behaviors in the Full Range of Leadership model. The higher the mean score
for the leadership behavior, the higher the subordinates' perception of the leadership
behavior being present in the leadership style of the deans.
The leadership behavior with the highest mean score was inspirational motivation
(2.94), indicating that it was the leadership behavior that subordinates perceived most
frequently in their dean of students. Among the transformational leadership behaviors,
inspirational motivation was followed by idealized influence-attributed (2.82), idealized
influence- behavior (2.75), individualized consideration (2.66), and intellectual
stimulation (2.61).
The transactional leadership behavior with the highest mean score was contingent
reward (2.64). The 2.64 mean score for contingent reward indicates it was perceived
more often in deans of students than the transformational leadership behavior of
intellectual stimulation, but perceived less often than the transformational leadership
behaviors of inspirational motivation, idealized influence-attributed, idealized influence-
behavior, and individualized consideration. Among the transactional leadership
behaviors, contingent reward was followed by management-by-exception passive (1.24),
and management-by-exception-active (1.15).
The least frequently exhibited behavior by deans of students as perceived by the
subordinates was laissez-faire leadership. Laissez-faire leadership behavior had a mean
score of .91.


4
higher education at every level (Rudolph, 1990; Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Caple, 1998).
The period of growth from 1945 to 1970 in enrollments, university influence in society,
graduate and professional programs, and in construction of new state institutions has been
called higher educations golden age and a time that ushered in the modem state
research university (Thelin, 1996; Lucas, 1994; Rhodes, 2001). However, the 21st
century state research university, as well as the society it serves, has changed profoundly
from higher education's golden age.
The state university today as compared to 40 years ago is much larger, more
complex, and offers a much wider range of opportunity for disciplinary, or
interdisciplinary specialization (Keller, 1990; Altbach. 2001). Its faculty and student
body are more characterized by involvement in graduate work, research, upper division
and professional education (Balderston, 1995; Rhodes, 2001). Large state research
universities have become national and international in their teaching, research, and some
public service areas (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Rhodes, 2001). They serve as the
foundation for the public college and university system that enrolls 78 percent of all
students and 81 percent of undergraduate students (Neimark, 1999).
The modern state research university finds itself in what Altbach (2001)
categorized as a curious paradox (p. 11). Along with its private counterpart, the state
research university is part of a system of higher education that is considered the best in
the world (Altbach, 2001). In writing about both the private and the public American
university, Rhodes (2001) stated:
It has been the foundation of growing national economic prosperity and
manufacturing success, vast improvements in the products of agriculture and
industry, and undreamed-of access to new means of communication;... [the
American university] has provided successive generations the opportunity for


CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA
The purpose of the study was to examine the leadership behaviors of deans of
students at public research universities in the southeast using Bass and Avolios (1997)
Full Range of Leadership model. The study investigated the relationship between
transformational, transactional, and laissez-fair leadership behaviors of the deans and the
outcome variables of subordinate satisfaction with the leader, subordinate perception of
leadership effectiveness, and subordinate willingness to exert extra effort.
Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:
1. To what extent do deans of students exhibit transformational, transactional, and
laissez-fair leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
2. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members perception of leader
effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater
Form (5X-Short)?
3. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members satisfaction with
their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
4. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members willingness to exert
extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
5. Is there a relationship between gender and the transformational leadership
behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership
52


70
Research Question 5
Research Question 5 examined whether there was a relationship between gender
and transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the
laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short).
The analysis was completed by evaluating each of the composite leadership
behaviors (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) separately. For each
leadership behavior, independent-samples t-tests using SPSS were run: (a) with the test
variable being the overall mean score for the leadership behavior and the grouping
variable being gender of participant; (b) with the test variable being the mean score for
the leadership behavior and the grouping variable being the gender of the dean; (c) with
the test variable being the mean score for male deans only and the grouping variable
being gender of participant; and (d) with the test variable being the mean score for female
deans only and the grouping variable being gender of the participant.
The t-tests did not reveal any significant differences in how deans leadership
behaviors were perceived depending on either the deans' gender or on the participants
gender. For transformational leadership, there was no significant difference in the mean
score for all deans as perceived by male participants (M= 2.75, SD = .616) and female
participants (M= 2.76, SD = .716) with t(94) = -0.080, and p = .936. There was no
significant difference between the mean scores for male deans (M= 2.69, SD = .654) and
female deans (M= 2.84, SD = .690) as perceived by all participants with /(94) = -1.087,
and p = .280. There was no significant difference between the mean scores for male
deans (M= 2.61, SD = .726) and female deans (M= 2.92, SD = .684) as perceived by


3
urban and industrial society; (b) providing broad access to education regardless of wealth
or social status; and (c) working to improve the welfare and social status of the farmers
and industrial workers (Bonnen, 1998).
The impact of the land-grant legislation was not felt immediately. At the
beginning of the 20th century public higher education remained largely undeveloped
(Thelin, 1996). However, this began to change after 1900 when state universities
increasingly became a symbol of state pride. State legislators began recognizing that
universities could be of service to the state; therefore, they started supporting them
financially (Lucas, 1994; Thelin, 1996). Thelin (1996) observed that applied research, a
utilitarian and comprehensive curriculum, not to mention the public appeal of spectator
sports and the availability of federal funds for such fields as agriculture and engineering
led to the growth and maturation of the state university (p. 12).
During the period between World War I and World War II, the promise of the
Morrill Act began to be seen in the state universities of the West and Mid-West with
enrollments climbing to between fifteen and twenty-five thousand at some institutions
(Thelin, 1996). However, many of the current large state research universities were still
relatively small during this period and their curricular offerings were limited. At the
beginning of World War II, several state universities had enrollments of fewer than five
thousand students and graduate and doctoral programs were limited (Thelin, 1996;
Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).
After World War II, the convergence of the Servicemens Readjustment Act and
the tremendous increase in government and foundation research grants available to
universities provided the driving force behind the incredible expansion that took place in


CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Kerlinger (1986) believed that a research design must encompass both the research
problem and the plan of investigation necessary to acquire empirical evidence on the
problem. While a design does not explain precisely what to do, it implies the direction of
observation and analysis. The purpose of this chapter is to present the research questions
that guided the study, the research population and sample that was studied, the instrument
that was employed, and the statistical analysis that were conducted.
The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership behaviors of deans of
students at public research universities in the southeast using Bass and Avolios (1997)
Full Range of Leadership model. The study investigated the relationship between
transformational, transactional, and laissez-fair leadership behaviors of the deans and the
outcome variables of subordinate satisfaction with the leader, subordinate perception of
leadership effectiveness, and subordinate willingness to exert extra effort.
Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:
1. To what extent do deans of students exhibit transformational, transactional, and
laissez-fair leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
2. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' perception of leader
effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater
Form (5X-Short)?
3. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
42


73
states of Alabama. Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Of the 137 professional staff
members surveyed. 96 returned completed surveys resulting in a response rate of 70%.
The data provided information on the extent to which deans of students exhibited
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors as perceived by the
professional staff members in the deans' office. Multiple regression analyses were used
to examine the relationship between the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership behaviors of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff
members' perception of leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, and willingness
to exert extra effort. The data was also evaluated to examine whether there was a
relationship between gender and transformational leadership behavior, the transactional
leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans of students.
Chapter 5 follows with a summary of the study and a discussion of the findings.
Suggestions for future research are also presented.


I certify that I have read this study and that it is my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
C. Arthur Sandeen, Chair
Professor of Educational Leadership,
Policy, and Foundations
I certify that I have read this study and that it is my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor 'of Philosophy.
Lamont A. Flowers
Assistant Professor of Educational
Leadership, Policy, and Foundations
I certify that I have read this study and that it is my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fulfy adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
AVayneT). Griffin
Clinical Assistant Prof
Counselor Education
I certify that I have read this study and that it is my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philoso
y adequate, in scope and quality,
loiieymar
Professor of Eductional Leadership,
Policy, and Foundations
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of
Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
May 2004
Dean, Graduate School


76
Leadership model. According to the Full Range of Leadership model, every leader
displays each of the leadership behaviors to some degree (Bass. 1998). However, the
leader with an optimal profile infrequently displays laissez-faire leadership and displays
successively higher frequencies of the transactional behaviors of management-by
exception (passive), management-by-exception (active), and contingent reward. The
optimal leader profile displays the five transformational leadership behaviors of idealized
influence-attributed, idealized influence-behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration the most frequently (Bass, 1998).
Under the Full Range of Leadership model, the hierarchy of correlations of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) components with the outcome variables of
leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, and willingness to exert extra effort is
typically transformational behaviors > contingent reward > management-by-exception
active > management-by-exception passive > laissez-faire leadership (Bass & Avolio,
1997). In addition. Bass (1985, 1998) states that transformational leadership augments
transactional leadership in predicting leadership behavior effects on the outcome
variables. Specifically, the augmentation effect states that transformational leadership
behaviors should account for unique variance in subordinates ratings of the outcome
variables over and above that accounted for by transactional leadership (Bass, 1998).
The results of this study produced a profile of leadership behaviors for deans of
students that was similar to, but did not match exactly, Bass and Avolios (1997) optimal
leader profile. The results provide evidence of the augmentation effect of
transformational leadership behaviors on subordinate ratings of the outcome variables
and provide no evidence of a relationship between gender and rating of deans of students


CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents a summary and discussion of the findings, implications for
student affairs, and suggestions for future research. The purpose of the study was to
examine the leadership behaviors of deans of students at public research universities in
the southeast using Bass and Avolios (1997) Full Range of Leadership model. The
study investigated the relationship between transformational, transactional, and laissez-
fair leadership behaviors of the deans and the outcome variables of subordinate
satisfaction with the leader, subordinate perception of leadership effectiveness, and
subordinate willingness to exert extra effort.
Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:
1. To what extent do deans of students exhibit transformational, transactional, and
laissez-fair leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
2. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members perception of leader
effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater
Form (5X-Short)?
3. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members satisfaction with
their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
4. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members willingness to exert
74


25
engaged in high levels of both task-focused and relationship-centered behavior (Daft,
1999).
The University of Michigan studies compared the behavior of effective leaders
with ineffective leaders. The Michigan researchers developed two types of leadership
behavior termed employee-centered and job-centered (Daft, 1999). The employee-
centered leader focuses on the needs of the followers and stresses interaction and support.
The job-centered leader directs activities toward efficiency by focusing on reaching task
goals and facilitating the structure of the work tasks (Daft, 1999). The employee-
centered and job-centered styles of leadership roughly correspond to the Ohio State
Studies concepts of consideration and initiating structure respectively. However, unlike
the Ohio State studies, the researchers at Michigan considered the two leadership styles to
be distinct, with a leader being one or the other, but not both (Daft, 1999). The Michigan
researchers findings indicated that employee-centered leaders were more productive than
job-centered leaders (Megginson et al., 1989).
The findings of behavioral studies such as the Ohio State and Michigan studies
have been questioned and criticized by other researchers (Daft, 1999; Kreitner & Kinicki,
1995). The criticism has included references to later research indicating that styles other
than the ones considered optimal by the studies can be effective (Kreitner & Kinicki,
1995; Daft, 1999). Other critics have pointed out that while it is relatively easy to call
certain behaviors of leaders effective once the desired outcomes have been observed, it is
much more difficult to stipulate in advance the behavior of leaders that result in the
desired outcomes (Bensimon, Neuman, & Birnbaum 1989, p. 14).


Demographic information
Directions: Please provide the information requested in the two sections below. Section 1 is requesting
information on the supervisor for your office (Dean of Students, Dean of Student Life. Director of Student
Life). Section 2 is requesting information on you. Please return this information sheet with the completed
questionnaire and the signed consent form in the postage-paid reply envelope.
Section 1: The Dean of Students/Dean of Student Life/Director of Student Life you are rating:
Gender:
Female
Male
Approximate Age:
20's 30s
40's 50s
60s
Education Level:
Bachelors Degree
Masters Degree
JD
Doctorate
Number of years in the current leadership position:
Section 2: Information on you:
Gender: Female Male
Approximate Age: 20s 30s 40s 50s 60's
Education Level: Bachelors Degree Masters Degree JD Doctorate
Number of years in student affairs :
Number of years working with the current Dean/Director in his/her current position:
102


86
best one-behavior model was individual consideration with an adjusted R of .650. The
best two-behavior model was individual consideration and idealized influence-attributed
with an adjusted R2 of .721. The best three-behavior model was individual consideration,
idealized influence-attributed, and laissez-faire with an adjusted R2 of .745. The best
four-behavior model was individual consideration, idealized influence-attributed, laissez-
faire, and contingent reward with an adjusted R of .757.
The full and reduced model regression and the all-possible subsets regression
indicate that individual consideration was the strongest predictor of professional staff
members" willingness to exert extra effort. Bass (1985) discussed individualized
consideration in terms of the leader continuously assisting followers in developing the
followers" full potential and the leader focusing on the needs of each follower as an
individual. Therefore, although individualized consideration was not found as a
significant predictor of the other outcome variables, it is consistent with the Full Range of
Leadership model that it would serve as a significant predictor for willingness to exert
extra effort.
Gender and Perception of Leadership Style
This study utilized independent samples t-test in examining how deans" leadership
behaviors were perceived depending on either the deans gender or the participant's
gender. The findings indicate that there was no significant difference in how male and
female deans of students were rated overall by their professional staff members and that
there was no significant difference in the way male and female professional staff
members rated their deans. These findings are consistent with those of Maher (1997) that


38
for being dean included (a) To help the student disciplined, and not merely to humiliate
him; (b) to make it easy for the faculty to do its work; and (c) to develop a sentiment
among the students which would render discipline less and less necessary (p. 101). As
his position developed, Dean Briggs took on several responsibilities outside of discipline
including registration, student record keeping, assisting entering students, counseling
students, and monitoring extracurricular activity (Brown, 1926; Rentz, 1996; Brubaker &
Rudy, 1997).
By the early 1900s, the combination of increased student influence on
extracurricular activities and increasing enrollments resulted in institutions adding
personnel to take on the responsibilities related to student life outside of the classroom
(Leonard, 1956). As a result, the positions of dean of men and dean of women became
mainstays of morality and decorum (Dressel, 1981, p. 94). Deans of men and women
were responsible for many out-of-class services and activities. Among their functions
were student discipline, housing, counseling, advising, student governance and other
student organizations, career development, health, supervision of facilities and social
events, and parental and public relations (Cohen, 1998; Dinniman, 1977; Rentz, 1996).
Deans of women were expected to give special attention to supervising the female
students social life, housing, health, and social hygiene (Dinniman, 1977).
Around the World War I period, student personnel professional associations
began to emerge as a result of student personnel deans traveling to neighboring campuses
to meet and discuss the common problems and issues they each faced (Dinniman, 1977;
Rentz, 1996). The deans of women formed the National Association of Deans of Women
in 1916, which later became the National Association for Women in Education. The


LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS AMONG DEANS OF STUDENTS AT PUBLIC
RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES IN THE SOUTHEAST
By
RICHARD A. BARTH
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2004

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge my dissertation committee for their assistance during the
dissertation process. Dr. Arthur Sandeen, my advisor, sustained me in this effort,
showing patience and understanding above the call of duty. Dr. Wayne Griffin, my
outside committee member, consistently reminded me of the importance of maintaining
balance in my life while working on the dissertation and provided a tremendous amount
of emotional support throughout the long process. Dr. David Honeyman and Dr. Lamont
Flowers were instrumental in assisting me with deciding on the dissertation topic and
helping me design the study.
I also wish to acknowledge Dr. Mike Rollo. Dr. Julie Athman. and Dr. Mike
Mironack. As colleagues and friends they kept me focused on the dissertation and
provided me with the advice and motivation needed to complete the journey.
A special note of thanks goes to Ms. Evelyn Chiang, who shared her time, talent,
and energy to aid me as I completed the dissertation. I truly appreciate the time she spent
teaching me about statistics and analyzing my data. Most of all, I appreciate her
unwavering support and friendship over the past two years.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents, Alvin and Dolores
Barth. They made many sacrifices throughout their lives to allow me to pursue my
educational goals. Through their hard work and commitment to education, they have
provided me with opportunities that they never had themselves. I am very fortunate to
have them as my parents.
ii
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES v
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 8
Theoretical Background 9
Definition of Terms 13
Delimitations and Assumptions 18
Organization of the Study 19
2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 20
Definitions of Leadership 21
Theories of Leadership 22
The Full Range of Leadership Model 29
Research on Transformational Leadership 35
Contingencies and Limitations of the Full Range of Leadership Model 36
The Dean of Students 37
3 METHODOLOGY 42
Research Population 43
The Instrument 44
Reliability and Validity 46
Data Collection 49
Data Analysis 50
Human Subjects 51
4 ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA 52
Survey Responses 53
iii

Response Rates 54
Demographic Information 54
Research Question 1 55
Research Question 2 57
Research Question 3 61
Research Question 4 65
Research Question 5 70
Summary 72
5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 74
Summary and Discussion of Findings 75
Leadership Behaviors Exhibited by Deans of Students 77
Leader Effectiveness as Measured by the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 79
Satisfaction with the Leader as Measured by
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 81
Willingness to Exert Extra Effort as Measured by
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 84
Gender and Perception of Leadership Style 86
Implications for Student Affairs 87
Recommendations for Future Research 89
APPENDIX
A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APROVAL 91
B MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE PERMISSION 93
C INFORMATION LETTER FOR DEANS OF STUDENTS 95
D INFORMATION LETTER FOR PARTICIPANTS 97
E INFORMED CONSENT FORM 99
F DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARTICIPANTS 101
G MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE ITEMS 103
REFERENCE LIST 105
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 115
IV

LIST OF TABLES
Table page
3-1 Organizational Samples Used in Validation and Cross
Validation Analysis of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 47
3-2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among
MLQ Factor Scores 48
3-3 Comparison of Overall Fit Measures Among Several Factors Model 49
4-1 Summary of Respondents and Deans Age Distribution 55
4-2 Summary of Educational Level for Deans and Respondents 55
4-3 Deans of Students: Leadership Behaviors 57
4-4 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Leader Effectiveness 59
4-5 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Leader
Effectiveness Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors 61
4-6 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Leader Effectiveness 61
4-7 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Satisfaction with the Leader 63
4-8 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Satisfaction
with the Leader Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors 65
4-9 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Satisfaction
with the Leader 65
4-10 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Willingness to Exert Extra Effort 68
4-11 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Willingness
to Exert Extra Effort Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors 69
v

4-12 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Willingness to
Exert Extra Effort
69
vi

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy
LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS AMONG DEANS OF STUDENTS AT PUBLIC
RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES IN THE SOUTHEAST
By
Richard A. Barth
May 2004
Chair: C. Arthur Sandeen
Major Department: Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations
This study examined the leadership behaviors of deans of students at public
research universities in the southeast using Bass and Avolios Full Range of Leadeship
Model. A sample ( = 96) of student affairs professional staff members working within
dean of students offices at 31 public research universities in the southeast completed the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5x-Short) to examine the relationship
between transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors of deans
of students and the outcome variables of satisfaction with the leader, perception of leader
effectiveness, and followers willingness to exert extra effort.
SPSS and SAS statistical software programs were used to run multiple linear
regression analyses on the data. Deans of students exhibited transformational leadership
behaviors more frequently than they exhibited transactional behaviors, which they
exhibited more frequently than laissez-faire behavior. The transformational behavior of
idealized influence-attributed, the transactional leadership behavior of contingent reward.
Vll

and laissez-faire behavior were significant predictors at the p < .05 level for the outcome
variable of leader effectiveness. The transformational behaviors of idealized influence-
attributed and idealized influence-behavior, the transactional behavior of contingent
reward, and laissez-faire behavior were significant predictors at the p < .05 level for the
outcome variable of satisfaction with the leader. The transformational behaviors of
idealized influence-attributed, idealized influence-behavior, and individual consideration,
along with the transactional behavior of contingent reward and laissez-faire behavior,
were significant predictors at the p < .05 level for the outcome variable of willingness to
exert extra effort. Transformational leadership behaviors accounted for unique variance
in professional staff members' ratings of the outcome variables above that accounted for
by transactional and laissez-faire leadership. The findings support the theoretical
prediction of the Full Range of Leadership model that leaders who are more
transformational and less transactional are more effective as leaders and more satisfying
to their followers. There was no significant difference in how male and female deans of
students were rated overall by their professional staff members and there was no
significant difference in the way male and female professional staff members rated their
deans.
viii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The federal government and the states began showing an interest in distinguishing
between public and private colleges soon after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution
(Rudolph, 1990; Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Several states established
nondenominational institutions between 1782 and 1820, beginning with Georgia, North
Carolina, Tennessee, and Vermont establishing state-chartered and state-supported
institutions before 1800 (Rudolph, 1990). The early enthusiasm for establishing state
institutions of higher education developed from the publics need for more democratic
and secular institutions that could be held accountable for fulfilling the needs and
objectives of the state (Rudolph, 1990). These initiatives indicated that higher education
was viewed as being essential to the public good and that state governments were
concerned about religiously governed private colleges dictating the national educational
agenda (Rudolph, 1990; Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).
This early push toward development of public higher education lost momentum in
the aftermath of the famous U.S. Supreme Court case, Trustees of Dartmouth College v.
Woodward, which gave privately incorporated colleges control over their own policies
and activities (Rudolph. 1990). Private colleges were created throughout the United
States after the Dartmouth decision and enjoyed unprecedented autonomy (Rudolph,
1990). Rudolph (1990) stated that the Dartmouth decision "discouraged the friends of
strong state-supported and state-controlled institutions;... by encouraging [private]

2
college funding and by discouraging public support for higher education, [Dartmouth]
probably helped to check the development of state universities for half a century (p.
211).
While the attempts at establishing state institutions of higher education were
premature in terms of public acceptance and ready implementation at the beginning of the
19th century, the last half of the 19th century was a time when the countrys industrialized
society was facing increasingly complex problems and deficiencies that would eventually
lead to the widespread development of public higher education (Rudolph, 1990;
Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). There was an increasing need for highly trained professionals
in areas such as engineering, agriculture, public health, forestry, and nursing, but the
professional schools of the modem university did not exist (Bonnen. 1998). There was
also a growing frustration with the perceived unresponsiveness of colleges, mostly
private, that were providing a classical education and were unwilling to address societys
changing needs (Bonnen, 1998). At the same time, a fear arose that the American
dream of unlimited opportunities was being threatened by industrialization and the
growing economic inequality it was causing. The lack of access to the skills and practical
education necessary for a better life was viewed as a serious threat to the survival of the
middle class (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Bonnen, 1998).
Part of the response to these concerns was the land-grant idea, which was
eventually expressed in the 1862 Morrill Land Grant Act and the second land-grant act of
1890 (Bonnen, 1998). The land-grant idea was to provide federal and state support for
the development of institutions of higher education devoted to science and education in
the service of society by (a) educating and training professionals for the increasingly

3
urban and industrial society; (b) providing broad access to education regardless of wealth
or social status; and (c) working to improve the welfare and social status of the farmers
and industrial workers (Bonnen, 1998).
The impact of the land-grant legislation was not felt immediately. At the
beginning of the 20th century public higher education remained largely undeveloped
(Thelin, 1996). However, this began to change after 1900 when state universities
increasingly became a symbol of state pride. State legislators began recognizing that
universities could be of service to the state; therefore, they started supporting them
financially (Lucas, 1994; Thelin, 1996). Thelin (1996) observed that applied research, a
utilitarian and comprehensive curriculum, not to mention the public appeal of spectator
sports and the availability of federal funds for such fields as agriculture and engineering
led to the growth and maturation of the state university (p. 12).
During the period between World War I and World War II, the promise of the
Morrill Act began to be seen in the state universities of the West and Mid-West with
enrollments climbing to between fifteen and twenty-five thousand at some institutions
(Thelin, 1996). However, many of the current large state research universities were still
relatively small during this period and their curricular offerings were limited. At the
beginning of World War II, several state universities had enrollments of fewer than five
thousand students and graduate and doctoral programs were limited (Thelin, 1996;
Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).
After World War II, the convergence of the Servicemens Readjustment Act and
the tremendous increase in government and foundation research grants available to
universities provided the driving force behind the incredible expansion that took place in

4
higher education at every level (Rudolph, 1990; Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Caple, 1998).
The period of growth from 1945 to 1970 in enrollments, university influence in society,
graduate and professional programs, and in construction of new state institutions has been
called higher educations golden age and a time that ushered in the modem state
research university (Thelin, 1996; Lucas, 1994; Rhodes, 2001). However, the 21st
century state research university, as well as the society it serves, has changed profoundly
from higher education's golden age.
The state university today as compared to 40 years ago is much larger, more
complex, and offers a much wider range of opportunity for disciplinary, or
interdisciplinary specialization (Keller, 1990; Altbach. 2001). Its faculty and student
body are more characterized by involvement in graduate work, research, upper division
and professional education (Balderston, 1995; Rhodes, 2001). Large state research
universities have become national and international in their teaching, research, and some
public service areas (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Rhodes, 2001). They serve as the
foundation for the public college and university system that enrolls 78 percent of all
students and 81 percent of undergraduate students (Neimark, 1999).
The modern state research university finds itself in what Altbach (2001)
categorized as a curious paradox (p. 11). Along with its private counterpart, the state
research university is part of a system of higher education that is considered the best in
the world (Altbach, 2001). In writing about both the private and the public American
university, Rhodes (2001) stated:
It has been the foundation of growing national economic prosperity and
manufacturing success, vast improvements in the products of agriculture and
industry, and undreamed-of access to new means of communication;... [the
American university] has provided successive generations the opportunity for

5
meaningful careers, for service in a free society, and for access to the riches of
human experience, aspiration, and achievement;... it has trained the workforce,
enriched the individual experience,... enlightened public life,.. quickened the
social conscience and empowered and inspired each rising generation, (p. 1)
Kerr (1991), in writing specifically about the strengths of the American higher education
system that emerged during the 1980s after a twenty-year period of major transformation,
stated:
Higher education met the test of action from 1960 to 1980 overall quite well, and
emerged from this period clearly larger and mostly better. In particular, it was
providing more services to more people in the American society than ever before.
It had, in many ways, been transformed, and, in the process, it had become a more
central aspect of the life of the nation and was, consequently in turn, a greater
potential source of transformation for the nation, (p. 376)
But despite the strengths of the American university and the overw helming benefits it has
produced for society, it is facing unprecedented criticism (Altbach, 2001).
The public higher education system has been the target of harsh criticism for
being too expensive, inefficient, poorly managed, and for lacking performance criteria
(Neimark, 1999). Specifically, the research university has been consistently criticized for
failing to engage its undergraduate students in the teaching and learning process
(Blimling & Whitt, 1999; National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges [NASULGC], 2001). By encountering this criticism at a time when the
landscape of higher education is changing rapidly, the state research university faces a
tremendous challenge in forging a new path to regain public confidence. Strong and
effective leadership at every level of the university is a critical element of meeting this
challenge (Lucas, 2000; Blimling & Whitt, 1999; Boudreau, 1998).

6
Statement of the Problem
Institutions of higher education currently face a landscape that is changing at an
unprecedented rate (Lucas. 2000; Blimling & Whitt. 1999). Along with the challenge of
this constant change, public institutions find themselves confronting both a decrease in
public confidence and an increase of external criticism over their perceived failure to
actively engage students in the teaching and learning process (Blimling & Whitt, 1999;
NASULGC, 2001). In addressing the criticism questioning the responsiveness and
relevance of public institutions, reports such as Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A
Blueprint for Americas Research Universities (The Boyer Commission on Educating
Undergraduates in the Research University [Boyer Commission], 1998) and Returning to
Our Roots: The Student Experience, by the Kellogg Commission (NASULGC, 1997)
emphasize the need for institutions to change the way they engage their undergraduate
student population by making undergraduates and their learning a higher priority.
In calling research universities' record of educating undergraduates one of failure,
the Boyer Commission (1998) stated:
In a context of increasing stress declining governmental support, increased
costs, mounting outside criticism, and growing consumerism from students and
their families universities too often continue to behave with complacency,
indifference, or forgetfulness toward that constituency whose support is vital to
the academic enterprise. Baccalaureate students are the second-class citizens who
are allowed to pay taxes but are barred from voting, the guests at the banquet who
pay their share of the tab but are given leftovers, (p. 37)
This criticism is not new, as scholars and commentators, such as Ernest Boyer and Page
Smith, have called for reform in undergraduate education for many years (Boyer, 1990;
Smith, 1990; Boudreau, 1998). But the criticism has intensified as higher education has

7
been slow to change and public trust continues to erode (Boudreau, 1998; NASULGC,
1997).
Observers of American higher education have written extensively on the role that
leaders in academic affairs must play in addressing the challenges higher education faces
and implementing the necessary changes. However, these writers address the issues
facing higher education while giving little or no attention to the role student affairs
leaders can or should play in assisting an institution with making undergraduate
education the first priority (e.g., Lucas, 2000; Balderston, 1995; Peterson, Dill, & Mets,
1997). Boudreau (1998) in his book, Universitas: The Social Restructuring of American
Undergraduate Education, fails to mention student affairs and the role it plays on campus
even when addressing the issue of students' drug and alcohol use impacting the
classroom experience. Surprisingly, the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and
Land-Grant Universities in its Returning to Our Roots series of reports fails to
specifically or clearly address the critical role student affairs may play in the lives of
students (NASULGC, 1997, 1998. 1999, 2000, 2001).
While some commentators and reform reports have failed to stress the important
role student affairs must play in addressing the changing environment of higher
education, others have clearly recognized this role. Boyer (1987) devotes an entire
section of his book, College: The Undergraduate Experience in America, to life outside
of the classroom and states that the college of quality remains a place where the
curricular and cocurricular are viewed as having a relationship to each other (p. 195).
Schroeder (1999) stresses that in responding to the pressure for improved undergraduate

8
education, academic personnel and student affairs personnel must work together to create
effective learning environments.
For public research universities that employ the dean of students title, the dean of
students is in a key leadership position to assist the institution in creating a seamless
learning environment for undergraduate students and making undergraduate education a
top priority. The dean of students often oversees several of the common functions found
in a student affairs division, holds the "primary educational role within student affairs,
and "has assumed the rather undefined but significant role of conscience of the campus
(Sandeen, 1996, p. 444).
A review of the literature in student affairs, including a search of published
dissertations, revealed no empirical studies conducted on the leadership behavior of deans
of students at public research universities. Overall, the contemporary dean of students
has received minimal scholarly attention in the literature (Robillard, 2000). As a result of
the lack of a research base, little is known about the leadership behavior of deans of
students and its relationship to the professional staff members perceptions of the
effectiveness of this behavior. This presents a significant gap in student affairs research
since the dean of students plays a major role in the student life program (Ambler, 1993)
and is responsible for many of the common student affairs functions (Sandeen. 1996).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership behaviors of deans of
students at public research universities in the southeast using Bass and Avolios (1997)
Full Range of Leadership model. The study investigated the relationship between
transformational, transactional, and laissez-fair leadership behaviors of the deans and the

9
outcome variables of subordinate satisfaction with the leader, subordinate perception of
leadership effectiveness, and subordinate willingness to exert extra effort.
Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:
1. To what extent do deans of students exhibit transformational, transactional, and
laissez-fair leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
2. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' perception of leader
effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater
Form (5X-Short)?
3. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members satisfaction with
their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
4. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members willingness to exert
extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
5. Is there a relationship between gender and the transformational leadership
behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership
behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
Theoretical Background
Leaders in public institutions face the challenge of how to lead at a time when
conditions are changing, public confidence is low, resources are tight, and options are
limited (NASULGC, 1997). Blimling and Whitt (1999) state that doing things the way
they have always been done is not an appropriate response for student affairs during this
period of reform in higher education. In facing the current challenges, there is a need for
visionary leadership within student affairs (Rogers. 1996). The authors of the report,

10
Returning to Our Roots: The Student Experience, state, We live in an age of
transformational not technical change. Our leadership, like our institutions, must become
transformational as well" (NASULGC, 1997, p. 21). Therefore, transformational
leadership theory is particularly applicable to the contemporary dean of students role
within the institution.
Transformational leadership was first distinguished from transactional leadership
by Dowton (1973). However, it was the work of Bums (1978) that first drew major
attention to the ideas associated with transformational leadership (Leithwood, Tomlinson,
& Genge. 1996). Bums (1978) conceptualized two factors, transactional and
transformational, to differentiate ordinary from extraordinary leadership. Transactional
(ordinary) leadership is based on an exchange relationship in which follower compliance
(effort, productivity, and loyalty) is exchanged for expected rewards. Transformational
(extraordinary) leaders raise followers consciousness levels about the importance and
value of designated outcomes and ways of achieving them. They also motivate followers
to transcend their own immediate self-interest for the sake of the mission and vision of
the organization. Followers confidence levels are raised and their needs broadened by
the leader to support their development to higher potential. Such total engagement
(emotional, intellectual and moral) encourages followers to develop and perform beyond
expectations (Bums, 1978; Bass, 1985; Sergiovanni, 1991).
Bass (1985) operationalized the work of Bums (1978) by developing a model of
transformational and transactional leadership that he later revised with Bruce Avolio and
that is now referred to as the Full Range of Leadership model (Bass & Avolio, 1994).
The model identifies four distinct transformational leadership behavior constructs:

11
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration. Three behavioral constructs identify transactional leadership: contingent
reward, management-by-exception active, and management-by-exception passive. The
model also includes a leadership behavior referred to as laissez-faire leadership, the most
inactive form of leadership where a leader chooses not to guide performance when the
situation would warrant guidance (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Bass is credited as being the
first researcher to operationalize a transformational leadership model into a measurement
instrument by his development of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Chemers,
1997; Conger. 1989).
Bass (1985) conception of transformational leadership and transactional
leadership contrasts with that of Burns (1978) who considered transformational and
transactional leadership practices as opposite ends of a continuum. Bass (1985) contends
that most leaders display transformational and transactional leadership in varying
degrees. Transformational leadership augments transactional leadership. Transactional
practices on their own do little to bring about the enhanced commitment and extra effort
required for the positive change that will occur when the members of an organization
experience transformational leadership (Leithwood et al., 1996).
Bass and Avolio (1997), in establishing the reliability and validity of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire as an instrument that can measure transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors as defined by their Full Range of
Leadership model, utilized a validation samples set and a cross-validation samples set.
The validation samples were collected from several different types of organizational
settings including military, business, political, non-profit, educational, and public service

12
organizations (Bass & Avolio, 1997). The only connection any of the samples in the sets
had to higher education was the use of undergraduate students and the evaluation of
leaders in nursing schools. The samples did not include any studies using student affairs
practitioners at public research universities.
While research has shown transformational leadership behaviors to be
significantly and positively related to outcomes of willingness of followers to exert extra
effort, a perception that the leaders leadership behavior is effective, and an overall sense
of satisfaction with the leader on the part of the followers (Bass, 1985; Seltzer & Bass,
1990; Bass & Avolio, 1997; Bass 1998), the population sample for the current study may
differ from the validation samples in ways that may weaken or enhance the relationships
between leader behaviors and subordinate criterion variables. Researchers have noted
that variables related to subordinate, task, and organizational characteristics can serve to
weaken, neutralize or enhance the relationships between particular leader behaviors and
subordinate criterion variables (Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Howell. Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986).
Therefore, in evaluating the leadership behaviors of deans of students through the
extension of Bass and Avolios (1997) Full Range of Leadership model to student affair
practitioners, the issue of what evidence exists to suggest the theory is applicable to the
current studys population arises. This issue is important since the current study is
extending the theory to a new population as opposed to testing the theory itself. The
evidence supporting the extension of the theory to student affairs practitioners comes
from Bass' (1998) review of the research on transformational leadership over a wide
range of organizational types and settings.

13
Bass (1998), in recognizing that variables related to subordinate, task, and
organizational characteristics can affect the relationships between particular leader
behaviors and subordinate criterion variables, stated that situational contingencies do
make a difference. However, Bass (1998) noted that over fifteen years of research
indicates that situational contingencies do not override the general finding that
transformational leadership behaviors are significantly and positively related to outcomes
of willingness of followers to exert extra effort, a perception that the leaders leadership
behavior is effective, and an overall sense of satisfaction with the leader on the part of the
followers. Bass (1998) argues that research has indicated that transformational leadership
is more effective than constructive transactions, which are more effective than corrective
transactions, regardless of situational contingencies.
This study investigated whether deans of students at public research universities
in the southeast exhibit transformational leadership behaviors, and if so, whether this
leadership style enhanced employee perceptions of extra effort, leadership effectiveness,
and follower satisfaction with leaders methods.
Definition of Terms
Specific terms used in this study are defined below.
Contingent Reward
Contingent reward is a transactional leadership behavior that rewards followers
for attaining specific performance levels. The leader utilizes primarily extrinsic
motivators to reward followers contingent upon effort and performance level achieved.

14
Dean of Students
The dean of students is a full-time student affairs professional who performs
supervisory and managerial activities within the division of student affairs and who is not
the chief student affairs officer. The dean of students is responsible for several of the
student affairs functions found on university campuses (Sandeen, 1996). Deans of
students generally report directly to the chief student affairs officer with the title vice
president or vice chancellor (Ambler, 1993). Other titles used for individuals having the
responsibilities of the dean of students are director of student life and dean of student life.
For the purpose of this study, the title dean of students will be used to represent those
persons holding the position of dean of students, director of student life, or dean of
student life.
Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive
Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive are institutions that typically offer a
wide range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through
the doctorate. They award 50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15
disciplines (Carnegie Foundation, 2000).
Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive
Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive are institutions that typically offer a
wide range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through
the doctorate. They award at least ten doctoral degrees per year across three or more
disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall (Carnegie Foundation, 2000).

15
Effectiveness
Effectiveness refers to a leaders ability to meet the job-related needs of the
followers and promote productivity within the department. This capacity also includes
the leaders ability to make contributions to the entire organization while representing the
followers interests to the senior leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1995).
Full Range of Leadership Model
The Full Range of Leadership model is a leadership model proposed by Bass and
Avolio (1997) developed from Bass (1985) transformational leadership theory. It
includes elements of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-
faire or non-leadership behaviors.
Idealized Influence
Idealized influence is a leadership behavior that result in leaders as role models.
These leaders are seen as courageous, visionary, value driven and as change agents.
They are admired, respected and trusted. Here the leader is viewed as having high moral
standards and uses power only when necessary. This leader provides consistency and is
seen as a risk taker (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994).
Individualized Consideration
Individualized consideration is a leadership behavior that significantly contributes
to the subordinates achieving their fullest potential (Bass, 1998). Leaders that exhibit this
behavior develop subordinates through coaching, mentoring, and providing feedback
(Bass & Avolio, 1994).

16
Inspirational Motivation
Inspirational motivation is leadership that excites, arouses and inspires
subordinates in ways that increase optimism and pride (Bass. 1985, 1998). Inspirational
motivation provides meaning and challenge in the followers work. Followers are
involved in the creation of new futures through a shared vision. Expectations are clearly
communicated in such a way that followers are committed to jointly developed goals
(Bass & Avolio, 1994).
Intellectual Stimulation
Intellectual stimulation is a leadership behavior that encourages followers to
analyze problems and seek out innovative solutions. The leader that utilizes intellectual
stimulation provides subordinates with challenging new ideas and stimulates thinking in
new ways (Bass, 1985).
Laissez-Faire Leadership
Laissez-faire leadership is the most extreme form of passive leadership,
considered to be non-leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994). The leader avoids making
decisions and is inactive rather than reactive or proactive. The leader evades getting
involved when important issues arise and fails to provide assistance when requested. The
leader is not motivated or adequately skilled to perform duties (Bass. 1998).
Management-bv-Exception (Active)
Management-by-exception (active) is a contingent reinforcement behavior in
which the leader actively seeks deviations from standards and takes actions when
irregularities occur (Bass & Avolio. 1994). The leader shuns giving directions if old

17
ways work and the followers continue to work in familiar patterns as long as performance
goals are met (Hater & Bass, 1988).
Management-by-Exception (Passive)
Management-by-exception (passive) is a leadership behavior in which the leader
only takes actions after deviations and irregularities are evident (Hartog, van Muijen, &
Koopman, 1997). The leader waits for problems to materialize prior to any intervention
(Hater & Bass, 1988).
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is a measurement instrument
developed by Bass and associates to identify and measure (a) the framework of
leadership factors included in Bass and Avolios Lull Range of Leadership Development
model, and (b) a set of three leadership outcomes (follower extra effort, leader
effectiveness, follower satisfaction with the leaders methods) that occur as a result of
leader behavior (Bass & Avolio, 1997).
Professional Staff
Professional staff are fulltime student affairs practitioners who have responsibility
for one or more outside-the-classroom services or programs at a post-secondary
institution. Professional staff typically have at least a masters degree in student affairs,
counseling, or higher education administration and are a member of a professional
association related to student affairs (Winston & Miller, 1991).
Transactional Leadership
Transactional leadership is leadership based on the exchange between leader and
follower (Bums, 1978). It is implemented through a series of implicit bargains in which

18
the leader offers incentives and rewards in exchange for satisfaction of lower order needs
(Bass, 1985).
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is leadership based on mutual stimulation and shared
vision, going beyond self-interest exchanges (Bass, 1985, 1998). Transformational
leaders broaden and elevate the interest of followers and have a transforming effect.
They motivate their followers and seek to fulfill their higher order needs (Bass, 1985).
Delimitations and Assumptions
For the purpose of this study, the following delimitations, limitations, and
assumptions apply:
Delimitations
1. This study is delimited to deans of students at public research universities that
(a) are classified as either Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive or
Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive by the 2000 Carnegie Classification
(Carnegie Foundation, 2000), (b) employ the dean of students title to
recognize a student affairs professional staff member that is not the chief
student affairs officer, and (c) are located in the Southeastern states of
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Therefore, it is not
intended to be reflective of the leadership profiles of deans of students at
large.
2. The study is delimited to the leadership factors developed by Bass (1998) of
Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation,
Individualized Consideration, Contingent Reward, Management-by-
Exception. and Laissez-Faire.
3. This study will examine the perceptions of subordinates of deans of students
regarding transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership
behaviors. It will not examine the perceptions of deans of students' peers or
supervisors.

19
Limitations
1. The sample composite of deans of students from public research universities
might not be representative of deans of students as a whole.
2. The subordinates who participate in this study might respond to the MLQ as
they believe they should and not answer truthfully.
3. The study will utilize only one measurement of leadership style, the MLQ
Short Form 5x.
Assumptions
1. Professional staff members within a dean of students office are able to identify
leadership qualities based on their perceptions of the dean's effectiveness.
2. Professional staff members within a dean of students office are able to
evaluate their satisfaction with the dean.
3. Professional staff members within a dean of students office are able to
evaluate their willingness to exert extra effort.
4. All subjects responded truthfully and accurately.
Organization of the Study
This study comprises five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the studys justification,
its purpose, the problem that it addressed, and the research questions that were tested. In
chapter 2, pertinent literature is reviewed with a focus on leadership theory,
transformational leadership, and information on the development and use of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. This chapter also contains a review of the history
of the student affairs dean. Chapter 3 describes the method that was used for answering
the research questions. Chapter 4 presents the results of the statistical analyses that were
used to answer the research questions. Chapter 5 provides the overall findings of the
study, conclusions drawn from the statistical analyses, implications of the results, and
recommendations for future research.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership behaviors of deans of
students at public research universities in the southeast using Bass and Avolios (1997)
Full Range of Leadership model. The study will investigate the relationship between
transformational, transactional, and laissez-fair leadership behaviors of the deans and the
outcome variables of subordinate satisfaction with the leader, subordinate perception of
leadership effectiveness, and subordinate willingness to exert extra effort.
Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:
1. To what extent do deans of students exhibit transformational, transactional, and
laissez-fair leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
2. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' perception of leader
effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater
Form (5X-Short)?
3. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members satisfaction with
their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
4. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' willingness to exert
extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
5. Is there a relationship between gender and the transformational leadership
behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership
20

21
behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
Definitions of Leadership
The perceived importance of leadership is evidenced by the volumes of
publications published on the topic. While there are numerous definitions of leadership,
influencing others is a common theme of the definitions. Hilgert and Haimann (1991)
defined leadership simply as the ability to guide and influence the opinions, attitudes,
and behavior of others (pp. 16-17). Gulley (1960) proposed that leadership is
influencing others within a particular situation and social context in a way that induces
them to follow, be modified, or to be directed (p. 174).
Other definitions explicitly state that leadership is goal directed. Kreitner and
Kinicki (1995) stated that leadership is influencing employees to voluntarily pursue
organizational goals (p. 428). Stogdill (1974) defined leadership as the process of
influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and goal
achievement (p. 57). Nahavandis (1997) and Desslers (1995) definitions of a leader
strongly support the idea that leadership is goal directed. Nahavandi (1997) defined a
leader as any person who influences individuals and groups within an organization,
helps them in the establishment of goals, and guides them toward achievement of those
goals, thereby allowing them to be effective (p. 4). Dessler (1995) stated leadership
occurs whenever one person influences another to work toward some predetermined
objective (p. 364).
Jago (1982) defined leadership in terms of both process and property:
The process of leadership is the use of non-coercive influence to direct and
coordinate the activities of the members of an organized group toward the
accomplishment of group objectives. As a property, leadership is the set

22
of qualities or characteristics attributed to those who are perceived to
successfully employ such influence, (p. 315)
These definitions imply that anyone who is able to influence others toward
objectives can be considered a leader. However, formal leadership is tied to a
hierarchical position. Y ukl (1994) used the term leader to refer to people who occupy
positions in which they are expected to exert leadership (p. 5). This was supported by
Nahavandi (1997) stating the presence of leaders often assumes some form of hierarchy
within a group (p. 4).
Theories of Leadership
Although leadership has been the subject of debate, examination, and
investigation for thousands of years, it has only been a topic of continuous formal
analysis by scholars for the last 100 years with several of the leadership theories being
developed in the past 50 years. The leadership theories and research can be classified as
trait, behavioral, situational, and transformational approaches. The evolution of
leadership theories and leadership research can be seen by reviewing these major
categories.
Trait Theories
Many of the earliest leadership investigations centered on identifying and
measuring the specific personal characteristics of leaders based on the assumption that
great leaders are born, not made (Megginson, Mosley, & Peitri, 1989; Kreitner & Kinicki,
1995). This approach is commonly referred to as the trait theory of leadership and it
dominated the study of leadership during the first half of the twentieth century. Studies
employing the trait approach attempted to identify distinctive physical or psychological
characteristics related to leadership behavior. The majority of these studies compared

23
leaders with non-leaders to identify differences that existed with respect to their physical
characteristics, personalities, and abilities (Yukl, 1989).
Prior to World War II, hundreds of leadership trait studies were conducted
identifying dozens of leadership traits (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995). Stogdill (1948)
reviewed and synthesized the results of over 120 of these studies and came to the
conclusion that no specific traits or personal characteristics stood out as certain, or even
strong, indicators of leadership. Stogdills findings brought criticism to the trait theories
and initiated a shift from focusing on traits to focusing on the behavior of leaders
(Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995).
Behavioral Theories
During World War II, as both a reaction to the criticism of trait research and the
burgeoning human relations movement, behavioral theories of leadership began to
emerge (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995). The concept behind behavioral leadership theory is
that group effectiveness is directly affected by leader behavior. Studies in this area focus
on identifying patterns of behavior often referred to as leadership styles that enable
leaders to effectively influence others (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995).
The studies conducted by Lewin and his associates (Lewin, Lippit, & White,
1939) in the 1930s are considered the precursor to the behavioral approach (Daft, 1999).
Lewin et al. (1939) identified the styles of leadership as autocratic, democratic, and
laissez-faire. According to Daft (1999), an autocratic leader is one who tends to
centralize authority and derive power from position, control of rewards, and coercion. A
democratic leader delegates authority to others, encourages participation, relies on
subordinates knowledge for completion of tasks, and depends on subordinate respect for

24
influence (p. 69). A laissez-faire leader is permissive and allows followers to do what
they want with minimum direction or discipline (Megginson et al., 1989).
Lewin et al. (1939) concluded that the democratic leadership style was the most
productive of the three. Work continued in the democratic environment when the leader
was not present implying group cohesiveness and motivation. The lowest productivity
was found with the laissez-faire environment in which worker frustration was high.
Work proceeded intensely in the autocratic environment as long as the leader was
present. However, work stopped when the leader was not present and worker aggression
was prevalent in this environment.
Two of the better-known behavioral leadership studies are the Ohio State Studies
and the Michigan Studies. These studies, like most of the behavioral studies, focused on
identifying the leaders orientation toward the employee, the task to be completed, or a
combination of the two (Megginson et al, 1989).
In studies conducted mostly in factories, researchers at Ohio State University
identified two types, or two dimensions, of behavior on the part of supervisors: initiating
structure and consideration (Daft, 1999). Consideration is an employee relation
oriented type that is identified by characteristics such as being friendly, considerate,
supportive, open and consultative. Leader behavior focuses on a concern for employees
needs and the leader strives to create an environment of mutual respect and trust (Daft,
1999). Initiating structure types are task oriented and are prone to be directive, to
coordinate, to plan and to problem solve. Leader behavior focuses on defining and
organizing what employees should be doing to maximize output (Kreitner & Kinicki,
1995). The Ohio State researchers found that the best results were obtained when leaders

25
engaged in high levels of both task-focused and relationship-centered behavior (Daft,
1999).
The University of Michigan studies compared the behavior of effective leaders
with ineffective leaders. The Michigan researchers developed two types of leadership
behavior termed employee-centered and job-centered (Daft, 1999). The employee-
centered leader focuses on the needs of the followers and stresses interaction and support.
The job-centered leader directs activities toward efficiency by focusing on reaching task
goals and facilitating the structure of the work tasks (Daft, 1999). The employee-
centered and job-centered styles of leadership roughly correspond to the Ohio State
Studies concepts of consideration and initiating structure respectively. However, unlike
the Ohio State studies, the researchers at Michigan considered the two leadership styles to
be distinct, with a leader being one or the other, but not both (Daft, 1999). The Michigan
researchers findings indicated that employee-centered leaders were more productive than
job-centered leaders (Megginson et al., 1989).
The findings of behavioral studies such as the Ohio State and Michigan studies
have been questioned and criticized by other researchers (Daft, 1999; Kreitner & Kinicki,
1995). The criticism has included references to later research indicating that styles other
than the ones considered optimal by the studies can be effective (Kreitner & Kinicki,
1995; Daft, 1999). Other critics have pointed out that while it is relatively easy to call
certain behaviors of leaders effective once the desired outcomes have been observed, it is
much more difficult to stipulate in advance the behavior of leaders that result in the
desired outcomes (Bensimon, Neuman, & Birnbaum 1989, p. 14).

26
Situational Theories
The limitations of trait and behavioral theories led researchers to explore a new
direction in leadership study. The new focus was on the situation in which leadership
occurred (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). The concept behind situational or contingency
leadership theories is that leader effectiveness does not depend on who the leader is or on
the leader exhibiting a high degree of certain behaviors. Instead, effective leadership is
based on engaging in different combinations of task and relationship behavior in different
situations. The appropriate style of leadership to be used depends on the situation, the
people, the organization, or other environmental factors (Megginson et al, 1989).
Research conducted by Fiedler (1974), McGregor (1960), Mannheim, Rim and
Grinberg (1967), and Hunt and Liebscher (1973) concluded that work settings that vary
in task structure and climate foster differential leader behavior. Vroom and Yetton (1973)
proposed that it is the leaders decision making behavior that affects group performance.
According to their approach the effectiveness of a decision making procedure depends on
aspects of the situation such as the likelihood that followers will cooperate if allowed to
participate in the decision making process.
One of the most widely cited situational approaches is Hersey and Blanchards
situational leadership theory. Hersey and Blanchard (1977, 1988) postulated a model that
identifies the readiness level of the followers and links it to the willingness and ability of
the followers to achieve the goals of the organization. Situational leadership theory takes
into consideration the followers developmental level in order to determine the leaders
approach to accomplishing tasks. There are four categories of leader task and
relationship behavior for this model: (a) high task/low relationship, in which actions are

27
initiated and decisions made by the leader; (b) high task/high relationship, wherein the
leader provides a considerable amount of direction but also listens to input from
followers; (c) low task/high relationship, which incorporates a shift in problem-solving
from the leader to the followers; and (d) low relationship/low task which results in almost
total delegation of decision making to followers. The appropriate category of leader
behavior is based upon the followers readiness level as it relates to the task to be
accomplished (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). Therefore, this model requires a high degree
of discernment on the part of leaders.
Situational leadership theory has been heavily criticized. The major criticism is
that the model lacks a sound theoretical foundation for the hypothesized relationships
among variables (Graeff, 1997). Other researchers have criticized the model by stating
that leader use of supportive behavior is an important contribution to effective leadership
at all levels of subordinate readiness (Goodson, McGee, & Cashman, 1989).
Transformational Leadership
Burns (1978) conducted a comprehensive study of leadership and concluded that
all leadership could be classified as either transactional or transformational. He stated
that a leader-follower interaction that is transactional in nature has the leader offering a
reward for the expected valued response of the follower. Therefore, in transactional
leadership, motivation is achieved when the leader is able to appeal to the self-interest of
the followers. Incentives and rewards are used for influencing motivation. Beyond the
achievement of their related goals, both leader and follower experience no enduring
relationship (Burns, 1978). By contrast, transforming leadership moves to a level of
morality in that both leaders and followers so engage with one another that they raise

28
each other to a greater sense of purpose and to aspirations that are noble and transcending
(Burns, 1978). Burns work led to the development of several new approaches to the
study of what is referred to as transformational leadership (Daft, 1999). The term is used
to contrast this new leadership with the older, transactional leadership approach.
Burns (1978) defined the transforming leader as one who recognizes and exploits
an existing need or demand of a potential follower. But, beyond that, the transforming
leader looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages
the full person of the follower (Burns, 1978, p. 4). Burns (1978) integrated Maslows
(1954) theory of human needs and Kohlbergs (1981) theory of moral development to
build his definition of transforming leadership and to examine moral leadership, which he
views as going beyond simply satisfying the followers wants or desires to being
actually instrumental in producing the social change that will satisfy both the followers
and leaders authentic needs (p. 4).
Motivated by Burns development of transformational leadership, Bass (1985)
sought to investigate what type of action or strategies leaders use in transforming
followers toward achieving organizational goals. He views the constructs of transactional
and transformational leadership as complementary. Therefore, transformational
leadership behaviors are likely to be ineffective in the absence of a transactional
relationship between leader and follower (Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim, 1987). According
to Bass (1985), transformational leadership augments transactional management to
achieve higher levels of follower performance with the primary difference residing in the
process by which the leader motivates followers and in the types of goals set. The ability

29
of transformational leaders to obtain performance beyond basic expectations of followers
has been labeled the augmentation hypothesis (Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990).
Bass (1985) viewed the transactional leader as one who operates within the
existing system, tends to avoid risk, focuses on time constraints and efficiency, and
prefers process over substance for maintaining control. The transactional leader fulfills
the needs of followers in exchange for performance that meets basic expectations. A
transactional leader is most likely to be effective in a predictable and stable environment
where measuring current performance against prior performance is the most successful
strategy (Bass, 1985, 1998).
Bass (1985) characterized the transformational leader as one who seeks new ways
of working, seeks opportunities in the face of risk, prefers effective answers to efficient
answers, and is less likely to support the status quo. The transformational leader attempts
to shape and create environmental circumstances as opposed to merely reacting to them
(Avolio & Bass, 1988). He or she will use transactional strategies when appropriate, but
will also motivate by appealing to followers ideals and moral values and challenge them
to think about problems in new ways. The transformational leader raises the level of
intellectual awareness of the followers about the importance of valued outcomes and
motivates followers beyond their own self-interest for the sake of the organization (Bass,
1985).
The Full Range of Leadership Model
Bass (1985) operationalized the concept of transformational and transactional
leadership by developing a leadership behavior model that he later refined with Bruce
Avolio and is referred to as the Full Range of Leadership Model (Bass & Avolio, 1994;

30
Bass & Avolio, 1997; Bass, 1998). The Full Range of Leadership Model contains three
classifications of leadership processes: (a) transformational, (b) transactional, and (c)
laissez-faire or non-leadership behavior (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass, 1998). The model
predicts that leaders who are more transformational and less transactional are more
effective as leaders and more satisfying to their followers (Bass & Avolio, 1997).
Components of Transformational Leadership
The first set of leadership behaviors in the full range of leadership model
identifies four distinct transformational leadership behaviors, called the Four Fs:
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1994, p. 3). According to Bass and Avolio (1994)
transformation leaders employ one or more of the Four Fs to achieve better results than
leaders that only exhibit transactional behavior.
Idealized influence is a transformational leadership behavior that results in leaders
being role models for the individuals they are leading. It is characterized by the leader
putting the followers needs above the leaders own personal needs, consistently
demonstrating high ethical standards, and using power only when necessary (Bass &
Avolio, 1994). Bass and Avolio (1997) divided idealized influence into idealized
influence-attributed and idealized influence-behavior. Idealized influence-attributed is
characterized by a leader who is risk-taker, makes followers feel good to be with him or
her, creates a sense of belongingness to the common cause, and cares about the interests
of the followers (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Idealized influence-behavior is characterized by
a leader who displays a high ethical and moral code, is a risk-taker, and has a strong
sense of mission (Bass, 1998).

31
Inspirational motivation is characterized by behaviors that provide meaning,
challenging goals, a sense of vision and mission, and belief that followers can reach goals
they may have originally thought too difficult to achieve. Optimism and enthusiasm are
expressed by the leader in getting followers to become engaged in envisioning attractive
future states (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994).
Intellectual stimulation is characterized by leader behavior that questions
underlying assumptions, reframes problems, and finds creative solutions to difficult
problems. This behavior develops the potential for followers to solve problems in the
future and encourages creative thought (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1997).
Individual consideration is a transformational behavior that focuses on the growth
and development of each follower, providing them with new opportunities to learn, and
giving them personalized attention. The leader coaches, mentors, and teaches in an
attempt to help followers reach the established goals (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1997).
Components of Transactional Leadership
Transactional leadership behavior is expressed by the rewarding or disciplining of
the follower depending on the adequacy of the followers performance (Bass, 1998). The
model breaks transactional leadership into the two components of contingent reward and
management-by-exception.
Contingent reward is characterized by the leader stressing an exchange where the
leader assigns or gets agreement on what needs to be done and promises rewards or
actually rewards others in exchange for satisfactorily carrying out the assignment (Bass,
1998, p. 6). Reward is contingent upon the effort expended by the follower and
performance level achieved (Bass, 1998).

32
Management-by-exception is defined by Bass (1998) as a corrective transaction
and occurs when a leader intervenes to make a correction only when something has gone
wrong or a mistake has been made (p. 7). Management-by-exception can either be active
or passive. Management-by-exception active is characterized by the leader actively
watching for deviations from the norm, and taking action when irregularities occur (Bass
& Avolio, 1997). Management-by-exception passive is characterized by the leader
intervening only after a correction is needed. There is no active monitoring for deviations
from the norm (Bass & Avolio, 1997).
Laissez-Faire Leadership
Laissez-faire leadership is the third classification of leadership in the Full Range
of Leadership Model and was added to address behaviors that indicate a non-transaction
of leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Laissez-faire leadership is the most inactive form
of leadership and is characterized by the leader avoiding decisions and not using his or
her authority. Bass (1998) states that Laissez-Faire behavior is the avoidance or absence
of leadership and is, by definition, most inactive, as well as the most ineffective
according to almost all research on style (p. 7).
The Augmentation Effect of Transformational Leadership
The Full Range of Leadership Model predicts that transformational leadership
will add to the effectiveness of transactional leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997; Bass,
1998). Although effective leaders are both transformational and transactional, Bass
(1985, 1998) states that transformational leadership augments transactional leadership in
predicting leadership behavior effects on the outcome variables of subordinate
willingness to exert extra effort, perception of leader effectiveness, and satisfaction with

33
the leader. Specifically, the augmentation effect states that transformational leadership
behaviors should account for unique variance in followers' ratings of the outcome
variables over and above that accounted for by transactional leadership (Bass, 1998).
The Optimal Leader Profile
According to the Full Range of Leadership Model, every leader displays
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors to some degree
(Bass, 1998). However, the leader with an optimal profile infrequently displays laissez-
faire leadership and displays successively higher frequencies of the transactional
behaviors of management-by-exception passive, management-by-exception active, and
contingent reward. The optimal leader profile displays the five transformational
leadership behaviors of idealized influence-attributed, idealized influence-behavior,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration the
most frequently (Bass, 1998).
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
According to Chemers (1997), the research of Bass and his associates provided
the support that was needed for applying transformational leadership concepts to
complex, formal organizations. Both Chemers (1997) and Conger (1989) give Bass
credit for being the first researcher to operationalize a transformational leadership model
into a measurement instrument by his development of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ).
Bass (1985) developed the MLQ to assess the leadership constructs of
transformational and transactional leadership explicated by his theory. The MLQ was
initially generated by exploratory methods and then tested in the field using factor

34
analysis (Bass, 1985). The MLQ has undergone several modifications to answer
criticisms about its validity and to be a better gauge of the full range of leadership
(Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995). The current form of the MLQ measures five
transformational leadership constructs, three transactional leadership constructs, and one
nonleadership construct. The nine scales are (a) idealized influence-attributed, (b)
idealized influence-behavior, (c) inspirational motivation, (d) intellectual stimulation, (e)
individualized consideration, (f) contingent reward, (g) management-by-exception
(active), (h) management-by-exception (passive), and (i) laissez-faire leadership (Avolio
et al, 1995). The first five scales refer to transformational leadership, the next three to
transactional leadership, and the last scale to nonleadership. The MLQ also measures
three outcomes of leadership: (a) extra effort of followers, (b) effectiveness of the leader,
and (c) follower satisfaction with the leader (Avolio et al, 1995).
The MLQ Hierarchy of Correlations
The Full Range of Leadership model predicts a hierarchy of correlations of the
MLQ components with the outcome variables of leader effectiveness, satisfaction with
the leader, and willingness to exert extra effort. The predicted hierarchy of correlations
states transformational behaviors will have higher correlations with the outcome variables
than contingent reward. Contingent reward will have higher correlations than
management-by-exception active, which will have higher correlations than management-
by-exception passive. Laissez-faire leadership will have the lowest correlations scores
(Bass & Avolio, 1997).

35
Research on Transformational Leadership
A review of the literature on transformational leadership indicates that it has a
consistent, reliable, and positive relationship to effectiveness measures, whether
organizationally based or subjectively determined as predicted by Bass (1985) in the
development of his theory. The empirical work on transformational leadership covers a
wide area, and applies the concepts in a number of different disciplines and settings.
Transformational leadership has been found to have a substantive and significant
relationship on organizational and group effectiveness (Avolio, Howell, & Sosik, 1999;
Avolio, Waldman, & Einstein, 1988; Barling, Weber, & Kelloway 1996; Geyer &
Steyrer, 1998; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Jung & Avolio, 1999; Lowe, Kroeck, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996), and perception of performance of the leader (Hater & Bass,
1988; Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass, 1993). Lowe et al. (1996), in a meta-analysis of 39
studies, found that a strong relationship exists between the transformational scales and
leadership effectiveness measures using either organizationally determined criteria or the
MLQ. Bass, Waldman, Avolio, and Bebb (1987) found transformational leadership to
have a powerful modeling effect on followers and on the organizational culture.
Transformational leadership was found to be predictive of innovation and creativity
(Howell & Higgins, 1990; Keller, 1992; Sosik, 1997), positive work attitude and product
knowledge (Yammarino et al., 1997), and followers feeling empowered (Howell &
Higgins, 1990). Furthermore, transformational leadership is predictive of satisfaction
with the leader (Barling, Weber & Kelloway, 1996; Druskat, 1994; Howell & Frost,
1989; Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Ross & Offermann, 1997), follower commitment
(Yammarino et al., 1997), organizational commitment (Barling et al., 1996; Koh et al.,

36
1995), and organizational citizenship (Koh et al., 1995). It has also been found that
individuals can be trained to exhibit transformational leadership behavior (Avolio, 1999;
Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1997; Shea & Howell, 1999).
The large amount of research studies done on transformational leadership which
appear in a broad range of scholarly publications suggest that it is one of the most
important contemporary leadership topics. Overall, the amount of research on
transformational leadership that indicates it has a consistent, reliable and positive
relationship to effective measures is impressive. The following section analyzes possible
contingencies and limitations.
Contingencies and Limitations of the Full Range of Leadership Model
Transformational leadership theory is moderated by situational variables
including level of the leader, the leaders personality, type of organization, the
organizational environment, characteristics of the followers, and type of criterion used to
determine effectiveness (Bass, 1985; Lowe et al., 1996). Transformational leaders are
more likely to arise in times of crises or of major change, and in organic types of
organizations that are not highly structured with routine tasks and functions (Bass, 1985).
Bass (1998) states that organizational turbulence is a condition that often supports the
emergence of transformational leadership in contrast to transactional leadership, which
is likely to emerge and be relatively effective when leaders face a stable, predictable
environment (p. 52).
Bass (1985) speculated that the effectiveness of transformational leadership
behavior may be contingent on the type of tasks to be performed. For example, Bycio,
Hackett, and Allen (1995) found that transactional behaviors are very important in

37
situations where safety is a major concern. Bass (1998) has also stated that where safety
is a priority, management-by-exception active may play a more prominent role in
determining organizational effectiveness than it does in other situations.
In terms of differences between a leader's gender, Druskat (1994), Bass, Avolio,
and Atwater (1996), Carless (1998), and Bass (1998) noted that women tend to display
transformational behaviors more often than men. This is in contrast to a study by Maher
(1997) finding that there are no differences between men and women leaders in
displaying transformational behaviors. According to Bass (1998) the differences that
were found may be explained by the fact that women are socialized to display more
nurturing, caring and developmental behaviors than men, and these behaviors are
essential elements or transformational leadership. Maher (1997) argued that any potential
differences that may have been found may not be universal and can be attributed to
situational or contextual variables.
The Dean of Students
In 1870, Harvard's President Eliot appointed Professor Ephraim Gurney as the
first college dean (Rentz, 1996; Brubaker & Rudy, 1997; Caple, 1998). Although
Gurneys responsibilities remained primarily academic, he assumed responsibility for
student discipline previously handled by President Eliot. Twenty years later. Harvard
divided the deans position into two offices essentially creating an academic dean and a
student affairs dean (Caple, 1998). An instructor of English, LeBaron Russell Briggs,
took on the nonacademic responsibilities related to students. For this reason, he is
generally considered the first dean of students (Rentz. 1996; Brubaker & Rudy, 1997;
Rhatigan, 2000). In his book about Dean Briggs, Brown (1926) wrote that Briggs goals

38
for being dean included (a) To help the student disciplined, and not merely to humiliate
him; (b) to make it easy for the faculty to do its work; and (c) to develop a sentiment
among the students which would render discipline less and less necessary (p. 101). As
his position developed, Dean Briggs took on several responsibilities outside of discipline
including registration, student record keeping, assisting entering students, counseling
students, and monitoring extracurricular activity (Brown, 1926; Rentz, 1996; Brubaker &
Rudy, 1997).
By the early 1900s, the combination of increased student influence on
extracurricular activities and increasing enrollments resulted in institutions adding
personnel to take on the responsibilities related to student life outside of the classroom
(Leonard, 1956). As a result, the positions of dean of men and dean of women became
mainstays of morality and decorum (Dressel, 1981, p. 94). Deans of men and women
were responsible for many out-of-class services and activities. Among their functions
were student discipline, housing, counseling, advising, student governance and other
student organizations, career development, health, supervision of facilities and social
events, and parental and public relations (Cohen, 1998; Dinniman, 1977; Rentz, 1996).
Deans of women were expected to give special attention to supervising the female
students social life, housing, health, and social hygiene (Dinniman, 1977).
Around the World War I period, student personnel professional associations
began to emerge as a result of student personnel deans traveling to neighboring campuses
to meet and discuss the common problems and issues they each faced (Dinniman, 1977;
Rentz, 1996). The deans of women formed the National Association of Deans of Women
in 1916, which later became the National Association for Women in Education. The

39
deans of men formed the National Association of Deans and Advisors of Men in 1919
(Fenske, 1989; Caple, 1998). The National Association of Deans and Advisors of Men
later became the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators while in 1924
members of the existing gender specific associations founded the American College
Personnel Association (Rentz, 1996). Denniman (1977) noted that the formation of the
professional organizations, publications on student personnel work, and the development
of training programs for deans of students, were all indications of the deanships
professionalization and growing influence in higher education (p. 8).
After World War I, the student personnel movement experienced an expansion
driven by the acceptance and application of mental testing and counseling techniques
developed by the Army during the war (Fenske, 1989; Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Caple,
1998). As testing and counseling gained credibility as tools to help students, their use
became widespread. Employing counseling on a large scale offered the student personnel
movement a greater degree of professionalism while the development and use of new
pedagogical and psychological theories gave support to the functions of student personnel
work (Garland, 1985; Caple, 1998). The importance of students non-cognitive needs in
their overall development was becoming increasingly recognized resulting in the
expanding and diversifying of student affairs functions on college and university
campuses (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Caple, 1998).
The period proceeding and just following World War II saw an increase in the
emphasis placed on student affairs functions (Caple, 1998; Rhatigan, 2000). The
philosophical basis for the student affairs profession was sharpened during this period by
the publication of the American Council on Educations 1937 and 1949 reports titled The

40
Student Personnel Point of View (Garland, 1985; Fenske. 1989; Rentz, 1996; Caple,
1998). The reports emphasized the philosophical basis for student personnel work and
provided the foundation and assumptions that many professionals believed to represent
the spirit of the profession (Garland, 1985; Rentz, 1996).
While the period after World War II was a time of expansion for student affairs as
a profession, Schwartz (1997) reports that it was not a good period for deans of women.
He argues that in the rush to return to normalcy and to reward men returning from the
war, the role women had played in the success of the student personnel movement was
largely ignored. While offices of the dean of men were often expanded to become dean
for student personnel, dean of students, and vice-presidents for student personnel
services deans of women were given lesser positions, dismissed, or allowed to retire
quietly (Schwartz, 1997, p. 433).
From 1950 to 1972, the title dean of students was the most frequently used title
to designate the chief student affairs officer (CSAO). However, it was during this period
that a shift to the designation of vice president was emerging. By 1972, 18% of the
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators member institutions were
using the title of vice president to designate their CSAO (Crookston, 1974). The use of
the vice president title continued to increase through the 1970s and 1980s becoming the
preferred designation of the chief student affairs officer at public universities (Ambler,
1993). While the use of the dean of students title as designating the CSAO
fell from favor at public institutions, many public universities retained the title to
designate a major student affairs officer who has responsibility for many of the aspects of
student life and who reports directly to the CSAO (Ambler, 1993).

41
Sandeen (1996) reports that the contemporary dean of students is often
responsible for several of the traditional student affairs functions, responds to student
crises, enforces the institutions community standards, and responds to the general
concerns of students, faculty, staff, parents, and community members (p. 444). A
review of the web sites for National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges member institutions in the Southeast that employ the dean of students title
indicate that the common student affairs functions that are supervised by the dean of
students include judicial affairs, Greek life, orientation and first-year programs,
leadership development, disability services, student organizations and activities, and
student government. Other functions that were not as common but were the
responsibility of several of the deans of students include withdrawals, parent programs,
service learning, international student services, housing and residence life, multicultural
affairs, and gender issues.

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Kerlinger (1986) believed that a research design must encompass both the research
problem and the plan of investigation necessary to acquire empirical evidence on the
problem. While a design does not explain precisely what to do, it implies the direction of
observation and analysis. The purpose of this chapter is to present the research questions
that guided the study, the research population and sample that was studied, the instrument
that was employed, and the statistical analysis that were conducted.
The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership behaviors of deans of
students at public research universities in the southeast using Bass and Avolios (1997)
Full Range of Leadership model. The study investigated the relationship between
transformational, transactional, and laissez-fair leadership behaviors of the deans and the
outcome variables of subordinate satisfaction with the leader, subordinate perception of
leadership effectiveness, and subordinate willingness to exert extra effort.
Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:
1. To what extent do deans of students exhibit transformational, transactional, and
laissez-fair leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
2. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' perception of leader
effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater
Form (5X-Short)?
3. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
42

43
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' satisfaction with
their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
4. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members willingness to exert
extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
5. Is there a relationship between gender and the transformational leadership
behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership
behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
Research Population
The population for this study was student affairs professional staff members
supervised by deans of students at public institutions of higher education classified as
either Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive or Doctoral/Research Universities-
Intensive in the 2000 Carnegie Classification (Carnegie Foundation. 2000) located in the
southeastern states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The total number
of institutions representing this population is 45. Five institutions in this population did
not have an equivalent position to a dean of students for the purpose of this study and two
institutions had the position vacant at the time of the study. Therefore, 38 institutions
were used in the study.
The population for the study was primarily identified through the institutions' web
sites and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators membership
directory. Institutions were contacted through e-mail and through telephone calls from
the researcher when information was not available through the institutions web site or
the membership directory.

44
The Instrument
The research instrument utilized in this study was the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1997). The MLQ was used to collect
data regarding the independent variables of transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, and laissez-faire leadership and the dependent variables of subordinate
perception of leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, and willingness to exert
extra effort.
The MLQ Form 5X was developed by Bass and Avolio to address the criticisms of
an earlier MLQ survey instrument designed by Bass (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Through the
use of confirmatory factor analysis, Avolio, Bass and Jung (1995) refined the original
MLQ into an instrument that better represented each leadership component within the
Full Range of Leadership model. Their findings from the validation and cross validation
studies resulted in the selection of the items for the MLQ Form 5X.
The MLQ Form 5X is a 45-item questionnaire using a Likert scale to measure leader
behaviors. Thirty-six of the items measure the independent variables of leadership
behaviors and nine items measure the dependent variables of outcome factors (Bass &
Avolio, 1997). The MLQ measures five transformational leadership components, three
transactional leadership components, and one nonleadership component. The
components for transformational leadership are: idealized influence-attributed, idealized
influence-behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration. The components for transactional leadership are: contingent reward,
management-by-exception-active and management-by-exception-passive. Laissez-faire
leadership is the nonleadership component (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Each of the

45
leadership components are measured by four interconnected items that are as low in
correlation as possible with items measuring the other eight components (Bass & Avolio,
1997). The items that measure the individual leadership components and outcome
behaviors are as follows:
Transformational Behaviors:
Idealized Influence-Attributed is measured by items 10, 18, 21, and 25.
Idealized Influence-Behavior is measured by items 6, 14, 23, and 34.
Inspirational Motivation is measured by items 13, 26, 36, and 9.
Intellectual Stimulation is measured by items 2, 8, 30, and 32.
Individual Consideration is measured by items 15, 19, 29. and 31.
Transactional Behaviors:
Contingent Reward is measured by items 1, 11, 16, and 35.
Management-by-Exception (Active) is measured by items 4, 22, 24, and 27.
Management-by-Exception (Passive) is measured by items 3, 12, 17, and 20.
Laissez-Faire (Nonleadership) Behaviors:
Laissez-Faire is measured by items 5, 7, 28, and 33.
Outcome Behaviors:
Willingness to Exert Extra Effort is measured by items 39, 42, and 44.
Leadership Effectiveness is measured by items 37. 40, 43, and 45.
Satisfaction with Leader is measured by items 38 and 41.
The MLQ requires a ninth grade reading ability and takes approximately 15 minutes
to complete. The respondents are asked to rate their supervisor, judging how frequently
each statement in the item fits the supervisor. Numerical values are given for each of the

46
item responses. The values are: 0 = Not at all, 1 = Once in a while, 2 = Sometimes, 3 =
Fairly often, 4 = Frequently, if not always. A lower score indicates that the leaders
behaviors were perceived to be inconsistent with the description of the leadership
component and a higher score is indicative of the perception of the presence of behaviors
consistent with the leadership component.
Participants were also asked to complete a researcher-developed demographic
information sheet. The demographic information sheet requested information on the
deans of students' gender, age, educational level, and number of years in current
leadership position. It also requested information on respondents gender, age,
educational level, number of years in student affairs, and number of years working with
their current dean.
Reliability and Validity
In their instrument manual, Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Bass and Avolio (1997) summarized the results of
the tests employed for examining the MLQ 5Xs construct validity and reliability. For
their study. Bass and Avolio (1997) used a validation sample and a cross-validation
sample. The sample studies for both the validation sample and the cross-validation
sample were conducted by independent researchers and were based on data generated by
subordinates who evaluated their supervisors within a broad range of organizations and at
varying levels within the organizations (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Table 3-1 gives a
description of the validation samples set and the cross-validation samples set.
The scale scores for both the validation and cross-validation sets of samples are
provided by Bass and Avolio (1997) and are presented in Table 3-2. Reliabilities for

47
Table 3-1 Organizational Samples Used in Validation and Cross Validation Analysis of
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Description of Validation Samples
Description of Cross-Validation Samples
Set
N
Set
N
1. Undergraduate Students
254
1. Business Organizations in U.S.
215
(American and Taiwanese)
2. Political Organization in U.S.
428
2. Undergraduate Students (American)
162
3. Business Organizations in U.S.
549
3. Nursing Schools in U.S.
45
4. Fire Department in U.S.
325
4. U.S. Government Research
Organization
66
5. Not-for-Profit Government
Organization
189
5. Business Organizations in U.S.
457
6. Business Organizations in U.S.
320
7. College Educators in Nursing
School in U.S.
475
8. U.S. Army Organization
202
9. Oil Platforms Offshore from
Scotland
99
Note. Reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, MIND GARDEN, Inc., 1690 Woodside Road
#202, Redwood City, CA 90461 USA www.mindgarden.com from the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire for Research by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J Avolio. Copyright 1995, 2000 by Bernard M
Bass and Bruce J Avolio. All rights reserved. Further reproduction is prohibited without Publishers written
permission.
each of the leadership factors and the outcome scales range from .74 to .94 for the
validation sample and .73 to .93 in the cross validation sample (Bass & Avolio, 1997).
The scales' reliabilities are generally high, exceeding standard cut-offs for internal
consistency recommended in the literature (Alovio, Bass, & Jung, 1995).
Bass and Avolio (1997) used confirmatory factor analysis to test the convergent and
discriminant validity of the MLQ Form 5X scales. Bass and Avolio (1997) state that
the confirmatory factor analysis tests were specifically run to determine whether the data
collected from the validation and cross-validation sample sets confirmed the nine-factor
model proposed by Avolio and Bass (1991). Table 3-3 shows the comparison of the
Goodness of Fit (GFI), the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), the Root Mean

48
Square Residuals (RMSR), and the Chi-square test results. The fit measures and the chi-
square tests improved as the model progressed from a one-factor to a nine-factor solution
Variable
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. Attributed
2.56
.84
.86
Charisma
2.69
.90
.87
2. Idealized
2.64
.85
.79
.87
Influence
2.71
.89
.83
.89
3. Inspirational
2.64
.87
.85
.86
.91
Motivation
2.69
.91
.85
.90
.91
4. Intellectual
2.51
.86
.76
.84
.85
.90
Stimulation
2.50
.86
.75
.84
.85
.88
5. Individualized
2.66
.93
.82
.82
.87
.84
.90
Consideration
2.62
.94
.83
.86
.88
.84
.90
6. Contingent
2.20
.89
.68
.69
.73
.70
.75
.87
Reward
2.04
.94
.51
.58
.62
.60
.62
.86
7. Management-
1.75
.77
-.12
-.03
-.10
-.08
-.12
.03
.74
by-Exception
(Active)
1.71
.81
-.10
-.08
-.05
-.05
-.11
.21
.73
8. Management-
1.11
.82
-.54
-.54
-.55
-.52
-.54
-.34
.28
.82
by-Exception
(Passive)
1.17
.88
-.54
-.59
-.50
-.41
-.51
-.07
.44
.83
9. Laissez-Faire
0.89
.74
-.53
-.54
-.51
-.47
-.49
-.29
.18
.74
.74
0.99
.88
-.57
-.50
-.50
-.40
-.50
-.07
.40
.82
.87
10. Extra Effort
2.60
1.16
.68
.69
.73
.69
.74
.62
.03
-.36
-.34
.91
2.51
1.14
.71
.75
.78
.75
.82
.63
-.01
-.36
-.35
.86
11. Effectiveness
2.62
.72
.51
.44
.46
.41
.44
.32
-.14
-.35
-.41
.45
.91
2.66
.88
.62
.48
.52
.40
.53
.26
-.04
-.41
-.45
.48
.87
12. Satisfaction
2.57
1.28
.25
.22
.21
.18
.27
.19
.06
-.21
-.25
.23
.15
.94
2.38
1.28
.35
.18
.22
.08
.24
.11
.18
-.17
-.19
.19
.40
.93
Note. Each factor was rated on the 5-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 4(frequently, if not always). Alpha
coefficients are reported in boldface along the diagonal. First values in each column show correlations from
the validation set of samples (N=l,394 after listwise deletion) and second values in each column show
correlations from the cross-validation set of samples (N= 1,490 after listwise deletion). Reproduced by
special permission of the Publisher, MIND GARDEN, Inc., 1690 Woodside Road #202, Redwood City,
CA 90461 USA www.mindgarden.com from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research by
Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J Avolio. Copyright 1995, 2000 by Bernard M Bass and Bruce J Avolio. All
rights reserved. Further reproduction is prohibited without Publishers written permission.

49
(Bass & Avolio, 1997). Bass and Avolio (1997) stressed that the Goodness of Fit Index
of .91 for the full model exceeded the .90 cut-off criterion recommended in the literature
and that the Root Mean Square Residual of .04 of the full model satisfied the criterion
cut-off of less than .05 recommended by Joreskog and Sorbom (1989).
Table 3-3 Comparison of Overall Fit Measures Among Several Factor Models
Fit Measure
One-
Factor
Model
Two-
Factor
Model
Three-
Factor
Model
Five-
Factor
Model
Nine-Factor
Model
(Full Model)
Chi-Square/df
5674/594
(6859/594)
5260/593
(4258/593)
3529/591
(4229/591)
3341/584
(4126/584)
2394/558
(2967/558)
GFI
.75 (.66)
.77 (.81)
.86 (.81)
.86 (.82)
.91 (.88)
AGFI
.72 (.62)
.74 (.79)
.84 (.79)
.84 (.80)
.89 (.86)
RMSR
.07 (.08)
.08 (.07)
.05 (.07)
.05 (.07)
.04 (.05)
Note. First values based on validation set of samples (N=l,394). Values in parentheses are based on cross-
validation set of samples (N=l ,490). GF1 = Goodness of Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted GFI; RMSR = Root
Mean Square Residual. Reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, MIND GARDEN, Inc., 1690
Woodside Road #202, Redwood City, CA 90461 USA www.mindgarden.com from the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire for Research by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J Avolio. Copyright 1995,2000 by
Bernard M Bass and Bruce J Avolio. All rights reserved. Further reproduction is prohibited without
Publishers written permission.
One of the most comprehensive reviews of the MLQ to date was a meta-analysis
conducted by Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996). The researchers looked at
approximately 40 studies from a variety of countries, institutions, and organizational
levels. They concluded that the MLQ is a valid and reliable measure of transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
Data Collection
Each dean of students at the institutions involved in the study was sent a letter of
introduction from the researcher. The letter explained the study, provided a copy of the
MLQ for the dean's review, and provided the dean with the contact information for the
researcher and the researchers academic advisor.

50
All data was collected via the self-administered MLQ and the researcher-developed
demographic information sheet that were mailed to each member of the sample as part of
the survey packet. Participants, through the letter of introduction, were assured of
confidentiality and anonymity in the final reporting of results.
Survey packets were mailed to the professional staff members within the dean of
students office or its equivalent at each of the 38 institutions in the study during the late
spring and early summer of 2003. For institutions that had four or fewer professional
staff members in the Dean of Students Office, survey packets were sent to each
professional staff member. For institutions that had over four professional staff members
in their Dean of Students Office, four staff members were randomly selected and the
survey packets sent to those four staff members.
The survey packet included a cover letter, an informed consent form, a copy of
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5x-Short), a demographic
information sheet, and a postage-paid return envelope. Twenty-one days after the initial
mailing a duplicate packet containing a reminder letter was sent to all members of the
sample who had not returned the survey packet materials. Twenty-four days after the
second mailing, a third and final packet was mailed to the remaining non-respondents.
Data Analysis
Research Question 1 examined the degree to which deans of students exhibited
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors. Data collected by
MLQ was analyzed using SPSS to compute the mean scores and standard deviations for
the leadership scales of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.

51
Research questions 2, 3, and 4 employed multiple regression analyses to evaluate
the degree of relationship between each dependent variable (willingness to exert extra
effort, leadership effectiveness, and satisfaction with the leader) and the multiple
independent variables (transformation, transactional, and laissez-faire behaviors). SPSS
and SAS statistical software was utilized to run standard multiple regressions with the
composite independent variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
and laissez-faire leadership. Further analyses focusing on the component behaviors that
comprise the composite independent variables were conducted using SAS multiple
regression for full and reduced models and all-possible subsets.
Research question 5 utilized independent-samples t-tests to examine whether
there was a relationship between gender and the perception of transformational leadership
behavior, transactional leadership behavior, or laissez-faire leadership behavior.
Human Subjects
All respondents of the study were assured of confidentiality in the handling and
reporting of results. No adverse affects were foreseeable by participating or refusing to
participate in the study; therefore, the risk to human subjects was considered to be
negligible. Approval to proceed with this study was secured through the Institutional
Review Board of the University of Florida before participants were contacted.

CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA
The purpose of the study was to examine the leadership behaviors of deans of
students at public research universities in the southeast using Bass and Avolios (1997)
Full Range of Leadership model. The study investigated the relationship between
transformational, transactional, and laissez-fair leadership behaviors of the deans and the
outcome variables of subordinate satisfaction with the leader, subordinate perception of
leadership effectiveness, and subordinate willingness to exert extra effort.
Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:
1. To what extent do deans of students exhibit transformational, transactional, and
laissez-fair leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
2. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members perception of leader
effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater
Form (5X-Short)?
3. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members satisfaction with
their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
4. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members willingness to exert
extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
5. Is there a relationship between gender and the transformational leadership
behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership
52

53
behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
Survey Responses
The population for this study was student affairs professional staff members
supervised by deans of students at public institutions of higher education classified as
either Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive or Doctoral/Research Universities-
Intensive in the 2000 Carnegie Classification (Carnegie Foundation, 2000) located in the
southeastern states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The total number
of institutions representing this population is 45. Five institutions in this population did
not have an equivalent position to a dean of students for the purpose of this study and two
institutions had the position vacant at the time of the study. Therefore, 38 institutions
were used in the study.
Survey packets were mailed to the professional staff members within the Dean of
Students Office or its equivalent at each of the 38 institutions in the study during the late
spring and early summer of 2003. For institutions that had four or fewer professional
staff members in the Dean of Students Office, survey packets were sent to each
professional staff member. For institutions that had over four professional staff members
in their Dean of Students Office, four staff members were randomly selected and the
survey packets sent to those four staff members.
The survey packet included a cover letter, an informed consent form, a copy of
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5x-Short), a demographic
information sheet, and a postage-paid return envelope. Twenty-one days after the initial
mailing a duplicate packet containing a reminder letter was sent to all members of the

54
sample who had not returned the survey packet materials. Twenty-four days after the
second mailing, a third and final packet was mailed to the remaining non-respondents.
Response Rates
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5x-Short) was distributed
as a self-administered survey mailed to 137 professional staff members in the dean of
students office at the 38 institutions included in the study. The initial mailing and the two
reminder mailings resulted in 96 surveys being returned for a response rate of 70%.
Included in the calculation of the 70% response rate were the professional staff members
at seven institutions included in the study that did not return surveys for their respective
institutions. Therefore, while there were 38 institutions included in the study, the number
of deans evaluated was 31.
Demographic Information
The demographic information sheet was designed to obtain information from the
respondents on both the dean of students and the respondent in the areas of gender, age,
and education level. Information was also collected on the number of years the dean of
students had been in the dean position, the number of years the respondent had been in
student affairs, and the number of years that the respondent had worked with their current
dean. The demographic information sheet can be found in Appendix F.
The age demographic responses were divided into five categories. Table
4-1 presents the distribution of the respondents and deans with respect to age. The
majority of the respondents were in the 30s age group category and the majority of the
deans were in the 40s age group category. The deans tended to be in their 40s or older
and the respondents tended to be in their 40s or younger.

55
Table 4-1 Summary of Respondents and Deans Age Distribution
Age Category
20
30
40
50
60
% of Deans3
0.00
6.45
51.61
35.48
6.45
% of Respondents*1
23.95
40.62
25.00
7.92
3.12
Note.
*n = 31. bn = 96.
The majority of the respondents were female with 57.3% of the sample being
female and 42.7% being male. Of the deans, 45.2% were female and 54.8% were male.
The respondents and deans educational levels are presented in Table 4-2. The deans
educational levels were Baccalaureate Degree only (BS/BA) 0.0%, Masters Degree
19.3%, Juris Doctor (JD) 9.7% and Doctorate (PhD/EdD) 71.0%. The respondents
educational levels were Baccalaureate Degree (BS/BA) 10.4%, Masters Degree 67.7%,
Juris Doctor (JD) 5.2% and Doctorate (PhD/EdD) 16.6%.
Table 4-2 Summary of Educational Level for Deans and Respondents
BA/BS
MS/MA
JD
PhD/EdD
Deans %
0.0
19.3
9.7
71.0
Respondents %
10.4
67.7
5.2
16.6
Note.
*n = 31. bn = 96.
The average length of time the respondents had worked in student affairs was 7.25
years. The average length of time the respondents had been working under the dean they
evaluated for the study was 3.8 years. The deans that were evaluated for the study had
served in the dean position for an average of 7.6 years.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 examined the extent to which deans of students exhibit
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors as rated by their

56
subordinates using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short).
Table 4-3 provides the means and standard deviations calculated for each of the
leadership behaviors in the Full Range of Leadership model. The higher the mean score
for the leadership behavior, the higher the subordinates' perception of the leadership
behavior being present in the leadership style of the deans.
The leadership behavior with the highest mean score was inspirational motivation
(2.94), indicating that it was the leadership behavior that subordinates perceived most
frequently in their dean of students. Among the transformational leadership behaviors,
inspirational motivation was followed by idealized influence-attributed (2.82), idealized
influence- behavior (2.75), individualized consideration (2.66), and intellectual
stimulation (2.61).
The transactional leadership behavior with the highest mean score was contingent
reward (2.64). The 2.64 mean score for contingent reward indicates it was perceived
more often in deans of students than the transformational leadership behavior of
intellectual stimulation, but perceived less often than the transformational leadership
behaviors of inspirational motivation, idealized influence-attributed, idealized influence-
behavior, and individualized consideration. Among the transactional leadership
behaviors, contingent reward was followed by management-by-exception passive (1.24),
and management-by-exception-active (1.15).
The least frequently exhibited behavior by deans of students as perceived by the
subordinates was laissez-faire leadership. Laissez-faire leadership behavior had a mean
score of .91.

57
Table 4-3 Deans of Students: Leadership Behaviors
Leadership Behavior Type
Behavior
M
SD
Min.
Max.
Transformational
2.76
.67
0.80
4.00
Inspirational
Motivation
2.94
.66
1.00
4.00
Idealized Influence
Attributed
2.82
.89
0.00
4.00
Idealized Influence
Behavior
2.76
.77
1.00
4.00
Individualized
Consideration
2.66
.69
0.50
4.00
Intellectual
Stimulation
2.61
.78
1.00
4.00
Transactional
1.68
.40
0.67
2.58
Contingent
Reward
2.64
.69
0.75
4.00
Management-by-
Exception
Passive
1.24
.84
0.00
3.00
Management-by-
Exception
Active
1.15
.76
0.00
3.00
Laissez-Faire
Laissez-Faire
.91
.84
0.00
3.50
Note, n = 96.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 examined whether there was a relationship between the
transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-
faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff

58
members perception of leader effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short).
The initial analysis was performed between the dependent variable (leader
effectiveness) and the composite independent variables of transformational leadership,
transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership using standard multiple regression
analysis. The analysis was performed using both SAS Regression and SPSS Regression.
Further analyses were conducted using SAS multiple regression for full and reduced
models and all possible subsets.
The full and reduced model regression and the all-possible subsets regression
focused on the components in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) that
compose the composite independent variables of transformational leadership,
transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership. The transformational leadership
section of the MLQ is composed of five scales of four items each. The component
behaviors for transformational leadership are idealized influence-attributed (II-A),
idealized influence-behavior (II-B), inspirational motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation
(IS), and individualized consideration (IC). The transactional leadership section of the
MLQ is composed of three scales of four items each. The component behaviors for
transactional leadership are contingent reward (CR), management-by-exception active
(MBE-A), and management-by-exception passive (MBE-P). The laissez-faire (LF)
leadership section of the MLQ is a single scale with four items.
Assumptions were tested by examining normal probability plots of residuals and
scatter diagrams of residuals versus predicted residuals. No violations of normality,

59
linearity, or homoscedasticity of residuals were detected. In addition, box plots revealed
no evidence of outliers.
For the standard multiple regression analysis, no interaction effects between the
independent variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and
laissez-faire leadership were found. The regression analysis revealed that the model
significantly predicted leader effectiveness, F(3,92) = 137.71, /?< .0001. R2 for the model
was .818, and adjusted R2 was .812, indicating that the model accounts for 81.2% of the
variance for leadership effectiveness. Table 4-4 displays the unstandardized regression
coefficients (B), the standardized regression coefficients (|3), the observed t value (/), the
significance level (p), and the semipartial correlations (sr) for each variable.
All three of the independent variables were significant at the p < .05 level. For
transformational leadership. (3 = .651, t = 12.22, and p .0001. For transactional
leadership, [3 = .159, t = 2.99, and p = .004. For laissez-faire leadership, p = -.414, t = -
6.85, and p = .0001. Comparing across variables, transformational leadership was the
strongest predictor of leader effectiveness, and there was a significant negative
relationship between laissez-faire behavior and leadership effectiveness.
Under Bass and Avolios (1997) Full Range of Leadership model, the dependent
variable of leader effectiveness is higher for leaders who are perceived as having higher
Table 4-4 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Leader
Effectiveness
Variable
B
P
t
P
sr
Transformational
.863
.651
12.22
.0001*
.544
Transactional
.351
.159
2.99
.004*
.133
Laissez-Faire
-.441
-.414
-6.85
.0001*
-.305
Note, n = 96. Rr
*p < .05.
.818.

60
scores on the transformational leadership component behaviors. Therefore, a multiple
regression analysis using full and reduced models was calculated to examine the extent to
which the transformational leadership component behaviors added to the predictive
accuracy for the dependent variable of leader effectiveness when they are added to the
transactional component behaviors and laissez-faire behavior.
The transformational leadership components significantly added to the predictive
accuracy for the dependent variable of leadership effectiveness when they were added to
the components for transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership behavior. The F-
value was calculated at 9.88 withp < .05 and R increased by 8% when the
transformational components were added to the reduced model. In addition, it was found
that of the variance in leader effectiveness that was not associated with transactional and
laissez-faire leadership, 57% was associated with the transformational leadership
behaviors. Table 4-5 displays the unstandardized regression coefficients (B), the
standard errors (SE), the observed t values (/), and the significance levels (p) for the
component behaviors in the reduced model and the full model.
The component behaviors were analyzed using an all-possible subsets regression
with a R selection method to determine which groups of behaviors were the best
predictors of leader effectiveness. Table 4-6 displays the R2 and the adjusted R2 for the
best one-behavior model through the model that includes all nine behaviors. The highest
adjusted R2 was .851 for both the six-behavior model (II-A, II-B. IC, CR. MBE-A, LF)
and the seven-behavior model (II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR, MBE-A, LF). However, the four-
behavior model was close to being as strong as a predictor of leader effectiveness as the
six-behavior and seven-behavior models with an adjusted R2 of .846.

61
Table 4-5 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Leader Effectiveness
Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors
Behavior
B
SE
t
P
Reduced3
CR
.870
.071
12.05
.0001
MBE-A
.070
.060
1.16
.2488
MBE-P
.059
.077
0.77
.4441
LF
-.487
.077
-6.30
.0001*
Fullb
II-A
.276
.077
1.77
.0005*
II-B
.178
.091
1.96
.0532
IM
-.076
.082
-0.94
.3523
IS
.071
.110
0.64
.5214
IC
.101
.106
0.95
.3452
CR
.419
.085
4.92
.0001*
MBE-A
.049
.052
0.94
.3505
MBE-P
.054
.066
0.82
.4122
LF
-.360
.068
-5.29
.0001*
Note.
an = 96. bn = 96.
R2 = .780. b/P =
*p< .05.
.863.
Table 4-6 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Leader Effectiveness
Number
in Model
R2
Adjusted R2
Behaviors in Model
1
.696
.693
II-A
2
.776
.771
II-A, CR
3
.841
.835
II-A, CR. LF
4
.853
.846
II-A, II-B, CR, LF
5
.857
.850
II-A, II-B, IC, CR. LF
6
.860
.851
II-A, II-B, IC, CR, MBE-A, LF
7
.862
.851
II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR, MBE-A, LF
8
.862
.850
II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR, MBE-A, MBE-P, LF
9
.863
.849
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, IC, CR. MBE-A, MBE-P, LF
Note, n = 96.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 examined whether there was a relationship between the
transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-
faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff

62
members' satisfaction with their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short).
The initial analysis was performed between the dependent variable (satisfaction
with the leader) and the composite independent variables of transformational leadership,
transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership using standard multiple regression
analysis. The analysis was performed using both SAS Regression and SPSS Regression.
Further analyses were conducted using SAS multiple regression for full and reduced
models and all-possible subsets.
The full and reduced model regression and the all-possible subsets regression
focused on the components in the MLQ that compose the composite independent
variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire
leadership. The transformational leadership section of the MLQ is composed of five
scales of four items each. The component behaviors for transformational leadership are
idealized influence-attributed (II-A), idealized influence-behavior (II-B), inspirational
motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS), and individualized consideration (IC). The
transactional leadership section of the MLQ is composed of three scales of four items
each. The component behaviors for transactional leadership are contingent reward (CR),
management-by-exception-active (MBE-A), and management-by-exception passive
(MBE-P). The laissez-faire (LF) leadership section of the MLQ is a single scale with
four items.
Assumptions were tested by examining normal probability plots of residuals and
scatter diagrams of residuals versus predicted residuals. No violations of normality,

63
linearity, or homoscedasticity of residuals were detected. In addition, box plots revealed
no evidence of outliers.
For the standard multiple regression analysis, no interaction effects between the
independent variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and
laissez-faire leadership were found. The regression analysis revealed that the model
significantly predicted satisfaction with the leader, F(3,92) = 91.757, /?< .0001. R2 for the
model was .750, and adjusted R2 was .741, indicating that the model accounts for 74.1%
of the variance for satisfaction with the leader. Table 4-7 displays the unstandardized
regression coefficients (B), the standardized regression coefficients ((3), the observed t
value (/), the significance level (p), and the semipartial correlation (sr) for each variable.
The independent variables of transformational leadership and laissez-faire
leadership were significant at the p < .05 level. For transformational leadership, (3 = .700,
t = 11.22, andp = .001. For laissez-faire, (3 = -.283, t = -3.99, andp = .0001.
Transactional leadership was not significant at the p < .05 level with (3 = .052, t = 0.83,
and p = .410. Comparing across variables, transformational leadership was the strongest
predictor of leader effectiveness, and there was a significant negative relationship
between laissez-faire behavior and leadership effectiveness.
Under Bass and Avolio's (1997) Full Range of Leadership model, the dependent
variable of satisfaction with the leader is higher for leaders who are perceived as having
Table 4-7 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Satisfaction with
the Leader
Variable
B
P
t
P
sr
Transformational
.923
.700
11.22
.0001*
.585
Transactional
.113
.052
.83
.410
.043
Laissez-Faire
-.299
-.283
-3.99
.0001*
-.208
*p < .05.

64
higher scores on the transformational leadership component behaviors. Therefore, a
multiple regression analysis using full and reduced models was calculated to examine the
extent to which the transformational leadership component behaviors added to the
predictive accuracy for the dependent variable of satisfaction with the leader when they
were added to the transactional component behaviors and laissez-faire behavior.
The transformational leadership components significantly added to the predictive
accuracy for the dependent variable of satisfaction with the leader when they were added
to the components for transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership behavior. The
F-value was calculated at 13.69 with p < .05 and R2 increased by 15.7% when the
transformational components were added to the reduced model. In addition, it was found
that of the variance in satisfaction with the leader that was not associated with
transactional and laissez-faire leadership, 79.6% was associated with the transformational
leadership behaviors. Table 4-8 displays the unstandardized regression coefficients (B),
the standard errors (SE), the observed t values (t), and the significance levels (p) for the
component behaviors in the reduced model and the full model.
The component behaviors were analyzed using an all-possible subsets regression
with a R selection method to determine which groups of behaviors were the best
predictors of satisfaction with the leader. Table 4-9 displays the R2 and the adjusted R2
for the best one-behavior model through the model that includes all nine behaviors. The
highest adjusted R" was .849 for the full nine-behavior model. The second highest
adjusted R2 was .789 for both the four-behavior (II-A, II-B, CR, LF) and five-behavior
(II-A, II-B, IM, CR, LF) models.

65
Table 4-8 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Satisfaction with the
Leader Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors
Behavior
B
SE
t
P
Reduced3
CR
.760
.089
8.54
.0001*
MBE-A
-.022
.076
-0.29
.7713
MBE-P
.052
.097
0.53
.5974
LF
-.420
.098
-4.31
.0001*
Fullb
II-A
.467
.091
5.11
.0001*
II-B
.216
.109
1.99
.0496*
IM
-.104
.097
-1.07
.2875
IS
.107
.131
0.82
.4159
IC
-.002
.127
-0.01
.9895
CR
.204
.102
2.00
.0486*
MBE-A
-.035
.062
-0.56
.5739
MBE-P
.034
.079
0.43
.6671
LF
-.235
.081
-2.89
.0048*
Note.
an = 96. bn = 96.
R2 = .645. V = .802.
*p< .05.
Table 4-9 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Satisfaction with the Leader
Number
in Model
R2
Adjusted R2
Behaviors in Model
1
.722
.719
II-A
2
.757
.752
II-A, LF
3
.785
.778
II-A, II-B, LF
4
.798
.789
II-A, II-B, CR, LF
5
.800
.789
II-A, II-B, IM, CR, LF
6
.801
.788
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, CR. LF
7
.802
.786
II-A, II-B. IM. IS, CR. MBE-A, LF
8
.802
.784
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, CR, MBE-A, MBE-P, LF
9
.863
.849
II-A, II-B. IM, IS, IC, CR, MBE-A, MBE-P, LF
Note, n = 96.
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 examined whether there was a relationship between the
transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-
faire leadership behavior ot deans of students and their subordinate professional staff

66
members willingness to exert extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short).
The initial analysis was performed between the dependent variable (willingness to
exert extra effort) and the composite independent variables of transformational
leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership using standard multiple
regression analysis. The analysis was performed using both SAS Regression and SPSS
Regression. Further analyses were conducted using SAS multiple regression for full and
reduced models and all possible subsets.
The full and reduced model regression and the all possible subsets regression
focused on the components in the MLQ that compose the composite independent
variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire
leadership. The transformational leadership section of the MLQ is composed of five
scales of four items each. The component behaviors for transformational leadership are
idealized influence-attributed (II-A), idealized influence-behavior (II-B), inspirational
motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS), and individualized consideration (IC). The
transactional leadership section of the MLQ is composed of three scales of four items
each. The component behaviors for transactional leadership are contingent reward (CR),
management-by-exception active (MBE-A), and management-by-exception passive
(MBE-P). The laissez-faire (LF) leadership section of the MLQ is a single scale with
four items.
Assumptions were tested by examining normal probability plots of residuals and
scatter diagrams of residuals versus predicted residuals. No violations of normality,

67
linearity, or homoscedasticity of residuals were detected. In addition, box plots revealed
no evidence of outliers.
For the standard multiple regression analysis, an interaction effect between the
independent variables transformational leadership and transactional leadership was found
to be significant at the p < .05 level (p = .0114, / = -2.58). However, adding the
interaction term to the model only increased predictability of extra effort by 1.7%;
therefore, the interaction term was excluded from the model for the purposes of this
study. No other interaction effects between the independent variables were significant.
The regression analysis revealed that the model significantly predicted
willingness to exert extra effort, F(3,92) = 88.947, p < .0001. R: for the model was .744,
and adjusted R was .735, indicating that the model accounts for 73.5% of the variance
for willingness to exert extra effort. Table 4-10 displays the unstandardized regression
coefficients (B), the standardized regression coefficients ((3), the observed t value (t), the
significance level (p), and the semipartial correlation (sr) for each variable.
All three of the independent variables were significant at the p < .05 level. For
transformational leadership, (3 = .699, / = 11.07, and p = .0001. For transactional
leadership. |3 = .158, / = 2.50, and p = .014. For laissez-faire leadership, (3 = -.283, t = -
3.94, andp = .0002. Comparing across variables, transformational leadership was the
strongest predictor of willingness to exert extra effort, and there was a significant
negative relationship between laissez-faire behavior and willingness to exert extra effort.
Under Bass and Avolios (1997) Full Range of Leadership model, the dependent variable
of willingness to exert extra effort is higher for leaders who are perceived as having
higher scores on the transformational leadership component behaviors. Therefore, a

68
Table 4-10 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Willingness to
Exert Extra Effort
Variable
B
P
t
P
sr
T ransformational
1.029
.699
11.07
.0001*
.584
Transactional
.387
.158
2.50
.014*
.132
Laissez-Faire
TT~ 77T"
-.334
-.283
-3.94
.0002*
-.208
*p < .05.
multiple regression analysis using full and reduced models was calculated to examine the
extent to which the transformational leadership component behaviors added to the
predictive accuracy for the dependent variable of willingness to exert extra effort when
they are added to the transactional component behaviors and laissez-faire behavior.
The transformational leadership components significantly added to the predictive
accuracy for the dependent variable of willingness to exert extra effort when they were
added to the components for transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership
behavior. The F-value was calculated at 13.32 withp < .05 and R2 increased by 16.3%
when the transformational scales were added to the reduced model. In addition, it was
found that of the variance in willingness to exert extra effort that was not associated with
transactional and laissez-faire leadership, 77.5% was associated with the transformational
leadership behaviors. Table 4-11 displays the unstandardized regression coefficients (B),
the standard errors (SE), the observed t values (t), and the significance levels ip) for the
component behaviors in the reduced model and the full model.
The component behaviors were analyzed using an all-possible subsets regression
with a R selection method to determine which groups of behaviors were the best
predictors of willingness to exert extra effort. Table 4-12 displays the R2 and the adjusted
R~ for the best one-behavior model through the model that includes all nine behaviors.

69
Table 4-11 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Willingness to
Exert Extra Effort Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors
Behavior
B
SE
t
P
Reduced3
CR
.918
.102
9.01
.0001*
MBE-A
.071
.087
0.81
.4201
MBE-P
.146
.112
1.30
.1953
LF
-.478
.112
-4.28
.0001*
Fullb
II-A
.228
.105
2.16
.0334*
II-B
.275
.125
2.20
.0305*
IM
-.185
.112
-1.65
.1028
IS
.086
.152
0.56
.5736
IC
.477
.146
3.26
.0016*
CR
.240
.117
2.05
.0433*
MBE-A
-.006
.072
-0.09
.9297
MBE-P
.155
.091
1.71
.0914
LF
-.319
.094
-3.41
.0010*
Note.
an = 96. b = 96.
R2 = .627. bR2 = .790.
*p < .05.
The highest adjusted R2 was .772 for the seven-behavior model (II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR,
MBE-P, LF). However, the adjusted R2 for the five-behavior model (II-A, II-B, IC, CR,
LF) of .763 and the adjusted R2 for the six-behavior model (II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR. LF) of
.768 are within 1% of the seven-behavior adjusted R2.
Table 4-12 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Willingness to Exert Extra
Effort
Number
in Model
R2
Adjusted R2
Behaviors in Model
1
.654
.650
IC
2
.727
.721
II-A, IC
3
.753
.745
II-A, IC, LF
4
.768
.757
II-A, II-B, IC, LF
5
.776
.763
II-A, II-B, IC, CR, LF
6
.782
.768
II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR, LF
7
.789
.772
II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR. MBE-P. LF
8
.790
.770
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, IC, CR, MBE-P, LF
9
.790
.768
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, IC, CR, MBE-A, MBE-P, LF
Note, n = 96.

70
Research Question 5
Research Question 5 examined whether there was a relationship between gender
and transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the
laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short).
The analysis was completed by evaluating each of the composite leadership
behaviors (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) separately. For each
leadership behavior, independent-samples t-tests using SPSS were run: (a) with the test
variable being the overall mean score for the leadership behavior and the grouping
variable being gender of participant; (b) with the test variable being the mean score for
the leadership behavior and the grouping variable being the gender of the dean; (c) with
the test variable being the mean score for male deans only and the grouping variable
being gender of participant; and (d) with the test variable being the mean score for female
deans only and the grouping variable being gender of the participant.
The t-tests did not reveal any significant differences in how deans leadership
behaviors were perceived depending on either the deans' gender or on the participants
gender. For transformational leadership, there was no significant difference in the mean
score for all deans as perceived by male participants (M= 2.75, SD = .616) and female
participants (M= 2.76, SD = .716) with t(94) = -0.080, and p = .936. There was no
significant difference between the mean scores for male deans (M= 2.69, SD = .654) and
female deans (M= 2.84, SD = .690) as perceived by all participants with /(94) = -1.087,
and p = .280. There was no significant difference between the mean scores for male
deans (M= 2.61, SD = .726) and female deans (M= 2.92, SD = .684) as perceived by

71
female participants with (53) = -1.633, and= .108. There was no significant difference
between the mean scores for male deans {M 2.78, SD = .567) and female deans (M=
2.71, SD = .703) as perceived by male participants with (39) = 0.380, andp = .706.
There was no significant difference in the mean scores for female deans as perceived by
male participants (M= 2.71, SD = .703) and female participants (M= 2.92, SD = .684)
with (42) = -0.969, andp = .338. There was no significant difference in the mean scores
for male deans as perceived by male participants (M= 2.78, SD = .567) and female
participants (M= 2.61, SD = .726) with (50) = 0.971, andp = .336.
For transactional leadership, there was no significant difference in the mean score
for all deans as perceived by male participants (M= 1.70, SD = .410) and female
participants (M- 1.67, SD = .402) with (94) = 0.382 andp = .703. There was no
significant difference between the mean scores for male deans (M= 1.74, SD = .334) and
female deans (M= 1.60, SD = .466) as perceived by all participants with (94) = 1.637,
and p = .106. There was no significant difference between the mean scores for male
deans (M= 1.75, SD = .296) and female deans (M= 1.58, SD = .475) as perceived by
female participants with (53) = 1.56, and p = .126. There was no significant difference
between the mean scores for male deans (M= 1.73 SD = .377) and female deans (M=
1.64, SD = .464) as perceived by male participants with (39) = .702, and p = .487. There
was no significant difference in the mean scores for female deans as perceived by male
participants (M= 1.64, SD = .464) and female participants (M= 1.58, SD = .475) with
(42) = 0.388, and p = .700. There was no significant difference in the mean scores for
male deans as perceived by male participants (M= 1.73, SD = .376) and female
participants (M= 1.75, SD = .296) with (50) = 0.178 andp = .859.

72
For laissez-faire leadership, there was no significant difference in the mean score
for all deans as perceived by male participants (M= .884, SD = .806) and female
participants (M .932, SD = .867) with t{94) = -0.275 and p = .784. There was no
significant difference between the mean scores for male deans (M= .942, SD = .847) and
female deans (M = .875, SD = .834) as perceived by all participants with /(94) = 0.391,
and p = .697. There was no significant difference between the mean scores for male
deans (M= 1.14, SD = .929) and female deans (M= .732, SD = .767) as perceived by
female participants with /(53) = 1.774, and p = .082. There was no significant difference
between the mean scores for male deans (M= .730, SD = .707) and female deans (M =
1.125 SZ) = .913 ) as perceived by male participants with t(39) = -1.557. and p = .128.
There was no significant difference in the mean scores for female deans as perceived by
male participants (M= 1.125, SD = .913) and female participants (M= .732, SD = .766)
with t{42) = 1.525, and p = .135. There was no significant difference in the mean scores
for male deans as perceived by male participants (M= .730, SD = .707) and female
participants (M= 1.14, SD = .929) with t(50) = -1.776, and p .082.
The findings imply that there is no significant relationship between gender and the
transformational leadership behavior, transactional leadership behavior, or laissez-faire
leadership of deans of students as perceived by their professional staff members.
Summary
A total of 137 surveys were mailed to professional staff members working in a
dean of students office at 38 public institutions of higher education classified as either
Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive or Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive in
the 2000 Carnegie Classification (Carnegie Foundation, 2000) located in the southeastern

73
states of Alabama. Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Of the 137 professional staff
members surveyed. 96 returned completed surveys resulting in a response rate of 70%.
The data provided information on the extent to which deans of students exhibited
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors as perceived by the
professional staff members in the deans' office. Multiple regression analyses were used
to examine the relationship between the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership behaviors of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff
members' perception of leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, and willingness
to exert extra effort. The data was also evaluated to examine whether there was a
relationship between gender and transformational leadership behavior, the transactional
leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans of students.
Chapter 5 follows with a summary of the study and a discussion of the findings.
Suggestions for future research are also presented.

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents a summary and discussion of the findings, implications for
student affairs, and suggestions for future research. The purpose of the study was to
examine the leadership behaviors of deans of students at public research universities in
the southeast using Bass and Avolios (1997) Full Range of Leadership model. The
study investigated the relationship between transformational, transactional, and laissez-
fair leadership behaviors of the deans and the outcome variables of subordinate
satisfaction with the leader, subordinate perception of leadership effectiveness, and
subordinate willingness to exert extra effort.
Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:
1. To what extent do deans of students exhibit transformational, transactional, and
laissez-fair leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
2. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members perception of leader
effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater
Form (5X-Short)?
3. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members satisfaction with
their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
4. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members willingness to exert
74

75
extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
5. Is there a relationship between gender and the transformational leadership
behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership
behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
The study examined the leadership behaviors of deans of students at public
institutions of higher education classified as either Doctoral/Research Universities-
Extensive or Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive in the 2000 Carnegie
Classification (Carnegie Foundation, 2000) located in the southeastern states of Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida. Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The total number of institutions representing this
population is 45. Five institutions in this population did not have an equivalent position
to a dean of students for the purpose of this study and two institutions had the position
vacant at the time of the study. Therefore, 38 institutions were used in the study.
The study utilized Bass and Avolios (1995) Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short) to assess transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire leadership behaviors of deans of students as perceived by their professional
staff member subordinates. A researcher-developed demographic sheet was used to
obtain the age, educational level, and gender of the participants and of the deans that
were evaluated. Statistical analyses were conducted using both SPSS and SAS statistical
software.
Summary and Discussion of Findings
This study assessed the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership behaviors of deans of students using Bass and Avolios (1997) Full Range of

76
Leadership model. According to the Full Range of Leadership model, every leader
displays each of the leadership behaviors to some degree (Bass. 1998). However, the
leader with an optimal profile infrequently displays laissez-faire leadership and displays
successively higher frequencies of the transactional behaviors of management-by
exception (passive), management-by-exception (active), and contingent reward. The
optimal leader profile displays the five transformational leadership behaviors of idealized
influence-attributed, idealized influence-behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration the most frequently (Bass, 1998).
Under the Full Range of Leadership model, the hierarchy of correlations of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) components with the outcome variables of
leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, and willingness to exert extra effort is
typically transformational behaviors > contingent reward > management-by-exception
active > management-by-exception passive > laissez-faire leadership (Bass & Avolio,
1997). In addition. Bass (1985, 1998) states that transformational leadership augments
transactional leadership in predicting leadership behavior effects on the outcome
variables. Specifically, the augmentation effect states that transformational leadership
behaviors should account for unique variance in subordinates ratings of the outcome
variables over and above that accounted for by transactional leadership (Bass, 1998).
The results of this study produced a profile of leadership behaviors for deans of
students that was similar to, but did not match exactly, Bass and Avolios (1997) optimal
leader profile. The results provide evidence of the augmentation effect of
transformational leadership behaviors on subordinate ratings of the outcome variables
and provide no evidence of a relationship between gender and rating of deans of students

77
leadership behaviors. Conclusions drawn from the results of this study are discussed in
relation to the research questions that served as the basis for the study.
Leadership Behaviors Exhibited by Deans of Students
The findings suggest that deans of students at public research universities in the
southeast, as a group, exhibited transformational behaviors more frequently than
transactional behaviors, which they displayed more frequently than laissez-faire
leadership behaviors. The mean scores for deans of students leadership behavior
presented in Table 4-3 indicate that deans of students exhibited transformational
leadership fairly often 2.76, SD = .67), transactional leadership sometimes (M
1.68, SD = .40), and laissez-faire leadership once in a while (M= 0.91, SD = .84).
Therefore, the composite independent variables followed the Full Range of Leadership
model optimal profile which calls for transformational leadership behaviors to be
displayed more frequently than transactional leadership behaviors, which should be
displayed more frequently than laissez-faire leadership behavior (Bass & Avolio, 1997).
However, the mean scores for the component behaviors of the composite independent
variables did not exactly match the optimal profile.
The mean scores for the component behaviors of the composite independent
variables indicate that one of the transactional behaviors, contingent reward (M= 2.64,
SD = .69), was exhibited more than the transformational behavior of intellectual
stimulation (M= 2.61, SD = .78). While this finding prevents an exact match with the
optimal leadership profile proposed by Bass and Avolio (1997), it is not necessarily a
negative finding. Research on transformational leadership indicates that the frequency
with which transformational and transactional leadership behaviors emerge and are

78
effective can depend to some extent on the work environment, the organization, the goals
and tasks involved, and the distribution of power between the leaders and followers
(Bass, 1998).
Among the several factors that could have contributed to the relatively high mean
score for contingent reward is the possible stability of the deans offices due to the deans
length of time in the dean position. For this study, the average number of years the deans
of students had served in their position was 7.6 years. Therefore, due to their years of
experience in the dean position, the environment faced by the deans was a fairly
predictable and stable environment. Bass (1998) states that transactional leadership is
likely to emerge more frequently and be relatively effective when leaders are engaged in
a stable and predictable environment. What makes the dean of students position unique,
is that while it may operate in a stable and predictable environment, it often deals with
conditions of crisis and uncertainty which creates conditions that research indicates
makes the emergence of transformational leadership behaviors more likely (Bass, 1998).
Therefore, the high mean scores for the transformational leadership behaviors as well as
the transactional leadership behavior of contingent reward may be a reflection of the
environment within which the deans of students serve as leaders.
Additionally, the nature of the leader-subordinate relationship within a dean of
students office may provide some insight to the relatively high contingent reward mean
score. Bass (1998) speculates that in situations where the subordinate has power and
information, transactional leadership will emerge more frequently than in situations
where the leader retains most of the power and information. Sandeen (1996) states that
the dean of students often overseas several of the common functions found in a student

79
affairs division. These functions include units such as financial aid, services for students
with disabilities, and judicial affairs, which require the professional staff members within
the unit to have a high degree of knowledge and expertise in that particular area.
Therefore, a dean of students at a public research institution is typically supervising
individuals that have power and information within a specific area of responsibility.
Leader Effectiveness as Measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
The initial analysis for examining whether there was a relationship between the
transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-
faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff
members' perception of leader effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short) was done using SAS and SPSS standard regression.
The analysis revealed that the model significantly predicted leader effectiveness with the
composite independent variables accounting for 81.2% of the variance for leadership
effectiveness. For leader effectiveness, all three of the variables were significant at the p
< .05 level. However, transformational leadership was the strongest predictor of leader
effectiveness with a standardized regression coefficient of .651 compared to a
standardized regression coefficient for transactional leadership of. 159. Therefore, the
composite variable of transformational leadership was a stronger contributor to the model
in predicting leader effectiveness than the composite variable of transactional leadership.
There was a significant negative relationship between laissez-faire behavior and
leadership effectiveness with laissez-faire leadership having a standardized regression
coefficient of-.414 and a semipartial correlation of -.305. This indicates that deans who
frequently exhibit laissez-faire leadership behaviors are more likely to be perceived as

80
ineffective by their professional staff members than deans that rarely display such
behavior.
Further analyses were performed on the outcome variable of leader effectiveness
using SAS full and reduced model regression and SAS all possible subsets regression.
These analyses used the component behaviors of transformational and transactional
leadership to examine which component behaviors were having the strongest influence
on predicting leader effectiveness. While the full and reduced model regression did find
that the transformational leadership components significantly added to the predictive
accuracy of leader effectiveness, the only transformational leadership behavior
component that was found to be significant in the full model at thep < .05 level, was
Idealized Influence Attributed. The transactional leadership behavior of contingent
reward was also significant at the p < .05 level, as was laissez-faire leadership.
The significant predictive value of idealized influence-attributed and contingent
reward was also seen in the all-possible subsets regression. For the one-behavior model,
idealized influence-attributed was the best predictor of leader effectiveness with an
adjusted R" of .693. For the two-behavior model, idealized influence-attributed and
contingent reward were the best predictors of leader effectiveness with an adjusted R2 of
.771.
The findings of the full and reduced model regression and the all-possible subsets
indicate that, for the participants in this study, the transactional behavior of contingent
reward was a stronger predictor of leader effectiveness than several of the
transformational leadership component behaviors. This finding is not altogether
unexpected since Bass (1985, 1998) states that in general the best leaders are both

81
transformational and transactional, and that contingent reward behavior plays an
important role in effective leadership. However, it is not what the Full Range of
Leadership model would have predicted and it runs counter to much of the research on
the Full Range of Leadership model (Bass, 1998; Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990;
Howell & Avolio, 1993).
The findings on contingent reward suggest that there is something about the
nature of the work within a dean of students office that supports the transactional
behavior of contingent reward being a fairly strong predictor of leader effectiveness.
Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999) speculated that contingent reward could be the foundation
through which leaders build trust and structure the professional development expectations
of their followers. Studies that examined factors contributing to attrition in student
affairs work found that the work is often associated with long hours and stressful
conditions and that professional staff members are often dissatisfied with professional
development opportunities (Barr, 1990; Carpenter, 1990; Bender, 1980). Therefore, one
possible reason that contingent reward emerged as a stronger predictor of leader
effectiveness than expected is that it is effective in developing trust in a stressful work
environment and in clarifying professional development opportunities for professional
staff members within a dean of students office.
Satisfaction with the Leader as Measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
The initial analysis for examining whether there was a relationship between the
transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-
faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff
members' perception of satisfaction with the leader as measured by the Multifactor

82
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short) was done using SAS and SPSS
standard regression.
The analysis revealed that the model significantly predicted satisfaction with the
leader with composite independent variables accounting for 74.1% of the variance for
satisfaction with the leader. The independent variables of transformational leadership
and laissez-faire leadership were significant at the p < .05 level. The independent
variable of transactional leadership was not significant at the p < .05 level.
Transformational leadership was the strongest predictor of satisfaction with the leader
with a standardized regression coefficient of .700.
There was a significant negative relationship between laissez-faire behavior and
satisfaction with the leader with laissez-faire leadership having a standardized regression
coefficient of -.283. This indicates that professional staff members who perceive their
dean as frequently exhibiting laissez-faire leadership behaviors are less likely to be
satisfied with their dean as a leader.
Further analyses were performed on the outcome variable of satisfaction with the
leader using SAS full and reduced model regression and SAS all possible subsets
regression. These analyses used the component behaviors of transformational and
transactional leadership to examine which component behaviors were having the
strongest influence on predicting satisfaction with the leader. The full and reduced model
regression found that the transformational leadership components significantly added to
the predictive accuracy of satisfaction with the leader. The transformational leadership
behavior components that were found to be significant in the full model at the p < .05
level, were idealized influence-attributed and idealized influence-behavior. The

83
transactional leadership behavior of contingent reward was also significant at the p < .05
level, as was laissez-faire leadership.
The significant predictive value of idealized influence-attributed, idealized
influence-behavior, contingent reward, and laissez-faire leadership was seen in the in the
all-possible subsets regression. For the four-behavior model these components were the
best predictor of satisfaction with the leader with an adjusted R2 of .789. The only model
with a higher adjusted R was the full nine-behavior model. For the one-behavior model,
idealized influence-attributed was the best predictor of satisfaction with the leader with
an adjusted R of .719. For the two-behavior model, idealized influence-attributed and
laissez-faire behavior were the best predictors of satisfaction with the leader with an
adjusted R2 of .752. Idealized influence-attributed, idealized influence-behavior, and
laissez-faire comprised the best three-behavior model with an R2 of .778.
The findings of the full and reduced model regression and the all-possible subsets
regression indicate that for the outcome variable of satisfaction with the leader, the results
were closer to what the Full Range of Leadership model would predict than the findings
for leader effectiveness. The transactional behavior of contingent reward was found to be
a significant predictor, but it was not as strong as predictor as it was for leader
effectiveness. The transformational leadership behaviors of idealized influence-attributed
and idealized influence-behavior, were stronger predictors than contingent reward and for
the standard multiple regression with the composite independent variables, transactional
leadership was not a significant predictor.
The strong predictive value of the idealized influence components of
transformational leadership for satisfaction with the leader is consistent with Avolio,

84
Bass, and Jungs (1999) findings on the component behaviors of the Full Range of
Leadership model. Idealized influence is a charismatic type of leadership that builds
followers identification with the leader and the leader's vision. It is characterized by the
leader establishing himself or herself as role model through exhibiting high ethical
standards and it energizes followers as well as providing them with a clear sense of
purpose (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999).
Willingness to Exert Extra Effort as Measured by the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire
The initial analysis for examining whether there was a relationship between the
transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-
faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff
members willingness to exert extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short) was done using SAS and SPSS standard regression.
The analysis revealed that the model significantly predicted willingness to exert extra
effort with the composite independent variables accounting for 73.5% of the variance for
willingness to exert extra effort. All three of the independent variables were significant
at the p < .05 level. However, transformational leadership was the strongest predictor of
willingness to exert extra effort with a standardized regression coefficient of .699
compared to a standardized regression coefficient for transactional leadership of .158.
Therefore, the composite variable of transformational leadership is a stronger contributor
to the model in predicting willingness to exert extra effort than the composite variable of
transactional leadership.
There was a significant negative relationship between laissez-faire behavior and
willingness to exert extra effort w ith laissez-faire leadership having a standardized

85
regression coefficient of -.283 and a semipartial correlation of -.208. This indicates that
deans who frequently exhibit laissez-faire leadership behaviors are less likely to have
subordinates that are willing to exert extra effort than deans that rarely display such
behavior.
Further analyses were performed on the outcome variable of willingness to exert
extra effort using SAS full and reduced model regression and SAS all possible subsets
regression. These analyses used the component behaviors of transformational and
transactional leadership to examine which component behaviors were having the
strongest influence on predicting subordinate willingness to exert extra effort. The full
and reduced model regression did find that the transformational leadership components
significantly added to the predictive accuracy for willingness to exert extra effort.
Adding the transformational components to the model increased R2 by 16.3%, and of the
variance in willingness to exert extra effort that was not associated with transactional and
laissez-faire leadership, 77.5% was associated with the transformational leadership
behaviors. The transformational leadership behavior components that were found to be
significant in the full model at the p < .05 level, were idealized influence-attributed,
idealized influence-behavior, and individualized consideration. The transactional
leadership behavior of contingent reward was also significant at the p < .05 level, as was
laissez-faire leadership.
The predictive value of individualized consideration, idealized influence-
attributed, idealized influence-behavior, contingent reward, and laissez-faire was seen in
the all-possible subsets regression. For the five-behavior model, these components were
the best predictors of willingness to exert extra effort with an adjusted R2 of .763. The

86
best one-behavior model was individual consideration with an adjusted R of .650. The
best two-behavior model was individual consideration and idealized influence-attributed
with an adjusted R2 of .721. The best three-behavior model was individual consideration,
idealized influence-attributed, and laissez-faire with an adjusted R2 of .745. The best
four-behavior model was individual consideration, idealized influence-attributed, laissez-
faire, and contingent reward with an adjusted R of .757.
The full and reduced model regression and the all-possible subsets regression
indicate that individual consideration was the strongest predictor of professional staff
members" willingness to exert extra effort. Bass (1985) discussed individualized
consideration in terms of the leader continuously assisting followers in developing the
followers" full potential and the leader focusing on the needs of each follower as an
individual. Therefore, although individualized consideration was not found as a
significant predictor of the other outcome variables, it is consistent with the Full Range of
Leadership model that it would serve as a significant predictor for willingness to exert
extra effort.
Gender and Perception of Leadership Style
This study utilized independent samples t-test in examining how deans" leadership
behaviors were perceived depending on either the deans gender or the participant's
gender. The findings indicate that there was no significant difference in how male and
female deans of students were rated overall by their professional staff members and that
there was no significant difference in the way male and female professional staff
members rated their deans. These findings are consistent with those of Maher (1997) that

87
found there were no differences between men and women leaders in displaying
transformational behaviors.
Other studies have found that women tend to be more transformational than their
male counterparts (Bass, 1999). Bass (1999) speculated that the findings from studies
that found women tend to be more transformational examined organizations dominated
by males. In these situations, women may have had to be better leaders than their male
counterparts to attain the same leadership positions. Bass (1999) stated that more studies
needed to be done to examine what happens when women are in the majority. For this
study, female deans were a slight majority at 53.9%. Therefore, this study may indicate
that that the finding of previous research that females are more transformational does not
hold true when women are in the majority.
Implications for Student Affairs
The results of this study suggest that professional staff members working within a
dean of students office, or its equivalent, are more willing to exert extra effort, have
higher levels of satisfaction with the dean of students, and view the deans leadership as
more effective when the dean utilizes transformational leadership behaviors more
frequently than transactional leadership behaviors. While the study may not be entirely
conclusive, the results are consistent with the theoretical prediction of Bass and Avolios
(1997) Full Range of Leadership model. The model predicts that leaders who are more
transformational and less transactional are more effective as leaders and more satisfying
to their followers (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Where the results differ from the theoretical
prediction of the model is on the predictive value of the transactional behavior of
contingent reward. The findings indicate that contingent reward is a stronger predictor of

88
the outcome variables of leader effectiveness, willingness to exert extra effort, and
satisfaction with the leader than the model would have predicted.
The results have implications for student affairs since using effective leadership
practices improves the work experience of subordinates (Daft, 1999; Fiedler, 1974;
Hersey & Blanchard, 1988; Nahavandi,1997; Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Stogdill, 1974).
Employee satisfaction has been found to be a key indicator of the total quality of an
organization, and low employee moral negatively impacts many areas of an organization
(Tuttle, 1994). Malaney and Osit (1998) indicated that low student affairs staff moral
will spill over into the staffs work with students, producing student dissatisfaction with
the student affairs staff. Since professional student affair staff members within a dean of
students office are often on the front lines, interacting with students on a daily basis, their
satisfaction with their dean is a key variable for providing high quality services to
students.
Deans of students" professional staff members willingness to exert extra effort is
also a key component of an effective dean of students office. Long hours and stressful
conditions are common characteristics of student affairs work (Barr, 1990; Carpenter,
1990). Professional staff members who are willing to exert extra effort are more likely to
effectively meet the challenges associated with student affairs work and increase the
organizational quality of the office. Having professional staff members willing to exert
extra effort is also important to the productivity of a dean of students office at a time
when state legislatures are demanding that institutions be more cost-effective and rely
less on state support (Amone, 2004).

89
Through improving the work experience of their professional staff members and
increasing their professional staff members willingness to exert extra effort, deans of
students that employ a transformational leadership style can improve the student affairs
program at their institutions. Bass and Avolio (1998) found that transformational
leadership can be developed within individuals through a leadership development
program they refer to as the Full Range of Leadership Development. It is a
comprehensive training program that works with participants in improving their
leadership behavior profile and with dealing with the obstacles to changing their
leadership behavior (Bass and Avolio, 1998). This type of leadership development
program may assist deans of students in becoming more transformational in their
leadership, which would improve the work experience of their professional staff
members. Therefore, this type of leadership program could be developed for deans of
students at public research institutions.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings of this study support the existence of the basic theoretical prediction
of Bass and Avolios (1997) Full Range of Leadership model within the dean of students
offices at public research universities. However, the study is not conclusive and suggests
a number of areas for future research.
1. The current study was limited to deans of students at public research
universities in the southeast. Before the findings can be generalized to the
dean of students population as a whole, it is recommended that the study be
duplicated with institutions in other Carnegie Classifications, with private
institutions, and with institutions in other parts of the country.
2. A key to improving leadership effectiveness is identifying characteristics of
subordinates, organizational environment, and work tasks that neutralize or
enhance leadership behaviors (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Therefore, it is

90
recommended that research be done on the characteristics of the student
affairs work that may neutralize or enhance transformational leadership.
3. A comprehensive search of the literature revealed very limited studies on the
leadership behavior of deans of students or on what type of leadership is
effective within a dean of students office. Research to examine these areas
could prove valuable to student affairs practitioners.
4. This study did not attempt to examine how perceptions differ between
transformational and transactional deans of students. Future research could
focus on what transformational deans and transactional deans believe they
ought to be doing in differing circumstances.
5. Future research focusing on the relationship between transformational
leadership and outcomes beyond those measured by the MLQ would be
valuable. Included in this research could be a measure of job satisfaction.
6. Research suggest that transformational leadership can be learned (Bass &
Avolio, 1998). Future research employing a pre-test and post-test design
around a transformational leadership development program for deans of
students could be helpful.

APPENDIX A
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA
Institutional Review Board 98A Psychology Bldg.
PO Box 112250
Gainesville, FL 32611-2250
Phone: (352) 392-0433
Fax: (352) 392-9234
E-mail: irb2(5uil edu
http Vrgp ufl edu'irb irb02
TO: Mr. Richard A. Barth
155 Tigert Hall
Campus
FROM: C. Michael Levy, PhD, Chair
University of Florida
Institutional Review Board 02
SUBJECT: Approval of Protocol #2003-U-263
TTTLE: Leadership Behaviors Among Deans of Students at Public Research Universities in the
Southeast
SPONSOR: Unfunded
1 am pleased to advise you that the University of Florida Institutional Review Board has recommended
approval of this protocol. Based on its review, the UFIRB determined that this research presents no
more than minimal risk to participants. Given your protocol, it is essential that you obtain signed
documentation of informed consent from each participant. Enclosed is the dated, IRB-approved
informed consent to be used when recruiting participants for the research.
It is essential that each of your participants sign a copy of your approved informed
consent that bears the IRB stamp and expiration date.
If you wish to make any changes to this protocol, including the need to increase the number of
participants authorized, you must disclose your plans before you implement them so that the Board can
assess their impact on your protocol. In addition, you must report to the Board any unexpected
complications that affect your participants.
If you have not completed this protocol by 10-Mar-2004, please telephone our office (392-0433), and
we will discuss the renewal process with you. It is important that you keep your Department Chair
informed about the status of this research protocol.
CML:dl
Equal Opportunity/Affinnativc Action Ir.stilution
92

APPENDIX B
MULTIFACTOR LEADESHIP QUESTIONNAIRE PERMISSION

mfnd garden
MLQ Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire
Duplication Set
(Leader and Rater Forms, and scoring
for MLQ 5x-Short)
Permission to reproduce either leader or rater forms for
up to 150 copies in one year from date of purchase:
March 21,2003
bv Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio
Distributed by Mind Garden
1690 Woodside Road Suite 202, Redwood City California 94061 USA
Phone: (650) 261-3500 Fax: (650)261-3505
mindgarden@msn.com
www.mindgarden.com
Copyright 1995 by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio. All rights reserved.
It is your legal responsibility to compensate the copyright holder of this work for any reproduction in any medium. If any
part of this Work (e.g., scoring, items, etc.) is put on an electronic or other media, you agree to remove this Work from that
media at the end of this license. The copyright holder has agreed to grant permission to reproduce the above number of
copies of this work for one year from the date of purchase for non-commercial use only. Non-commercial use means that
you will not receive payment for distributing this document If you need to make additional copies than the above stated,
please contact Mind Gardcn.
94

APPENDIX C
INFORMATION LETTER FOR DEANS OF STUDENTS

UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA
Office of the Vice President
for Student Affairs
155 Tigert Hall
POBox 113250
Gainesville, FL 32611-3250
(352) 392-1265
April 27, 2003
Dear:
1 am a doctoral candidate in the Educational Leadership Program at the University of
Florida conducting research to examine leadership behaviors among deans of students at
public research universities in the southeast. Despite the important leadership role that
deans of students fill, little is known about the leadership behaviors of deans of students
as perceived by their professional staff members.
I am sending you this letter to inform you that staff members within your area of
supervision will be contacted and asked to participate in the study. Their involvement, if
they choose to participate, will consist of completing the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Rater Form (5x-Short), a demographic information sheet, and a consent
form. I have attached a copy of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for your
review.
Your staff members responses to the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire will be kept
in the strictest confidence and the results of the study will be reported in the aggregate so
that no individual or institution can be identified.
If you have any questions about the research, please contact me at (352) 392-1265 or
through e-mail at rbartlu idl.edu. If you wish to speak to my advisor. Dr. Art Sandeen,
he can be reached at (352) 392-2391 or through e-mail at sandeenfr; ufl.edu.
Sincerely,
Rick Barth
Doctoral Candidate
Interim Assoc. Vice President
Enclosure
An Fqual Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution
96

APPENDIX D
INFORMATION LETTER FOR PARTICIPANTS

Office of the Vice President
for Student Affairs
155 Tigert Hall
PO Box 113250
Gainesville. FL 32611-3250
(352) 392-1265
May 2. 2003
Dear:
1 am a fellow student affairs practitioner conducting research on the leadership behaviors
of deans of students at public research universities in the southeast. I am seeking your
participation in this study because your input regarding perceptions of the Dean of
Students at your institution is extremely important to the results of this research. The
information gathered will not only help complete my doctoral dissertation, but will also
contribute useful information furthering research on leadership in student affairs.
Your responses to the enclosed questionnaire will be kept in the strictest confidence and
results of the study will be reported in the aggregate so that no individual can be
identified. There is an identification number on the questionnaire for mailing purposes,
but your name will not be recorded on the questionnaire and any linkage between your
name and the identification number will be kept secure.
After you have completed the demographic information sheet and both sides of the
questionnaire please sign the consent form. It will only take you about 15 minutes to fill
out this information. You can return the materials in the enclosed postage-paid reply
envelope.
Thank you for taking the time to contribute to this research. If you have any questions
regarding the study you can e-mail me at lininlv" ufl.edu or call me at (352) 392-1265.
Sincerely,
Rick Barth
Doctoral Candidate
Interim Associate Vice President
University of Florida
98

APPENDIX E
INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Consent Form
A study of leadership behaviors among deans of students at public research universities in the
southeast is being conducted by a doctoral candidate in the Department of Educational Leadership,
Policy, and Foundations at the University of Florida. The purpose of the study is to examine the
leadership behaviors exhibited by deans of students at public research universities in the southeast using
Bass and Avolios "Full Range of Leadership" model.
Plans for Participation
Your participation will involve the completion of 1 questionnaire and a demographic information
sheet. The questionnaire will be used to collect information on your perceptions pertaining to the
leadership style of the supervisor of your office (Dean of Students, Dean of Student Life, Director of
Student Life, etc.). Completion of the demographic information sheet and the questionnaire will require
approximately 15 minutes of your time.
Voluntary Participation 'Confidentiality
Your participation in this study is voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. I foresee no risks
or discomforts to you by involving yourself in this study. There is no direct benefit to you for
participating in this study. Your responses to the questionnaire will be kept in the strictest confidence and
the information gathered will be used for research purposes only. Your identity will be kept confidential
to the extent provided by law. The results of the study will be reported in the aggregate so that no
individual can be identified. All instruments will be coded by number and your name will not appear on
the questionnaire or demographic information sheet.
Should you choose to participate, please sign below and return this form with the completed
demographic information sheet and the completed questionnaire in the enclosed postage-paid reply
envelope. You may withdraw your consent at any time without penalty.
Authorization: I, have read the procedure described
above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and 1 have received a copy of this description. 1
am aware that my responses will remain confidential and that I may decline to participate at any time.
Signature
Date
Further information may be obtained by contacting:
Any questions or concerns about your rights as
a participant in this study can be directed to:
UF 1RB Office
Box 112250
Gainesville, FL32611-2250
(352) 392-0433
£r
200g> -U
-24H
i
Rick Barth
339 NW 50th Blvd.
Gainesville, FL 32607
(H): 352-256-3147
(0): 352-392-1265
(Fax): 352-392-7301
E-Mail: rbarth 1 'o'mac.com
Supervisor Information:
Dr. Arthur Sandecn
Professor, Educational Leadership
200-E Norman Hall
POBox 117049
Gainesville, FL 32611-7049
Phone:392-2391 ext. 284
100

APPENDIX F
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARTICIPANTS

Demographic information
Directions: Please provide the information requested in the two sections below. Section 1 is requesting
information on the supervisor for your office (Dean of Students, Dean of Student Life. Director of Student
Life). Section 2 is requesting information on you. Please return this information sheet with the completed
questionnaire and the signed consent form in the postage-paid reply envelope.
Section 1: The Dean of Students/Dean of Student Life/Director of Student Life you are rating:
Gender:
Female
Male
Approximate Age:
20's 30s
40's 50s
60s
Education Level:
Bachelors Degree
Masters Degree
JD
Doctorate
Number of years in the current leadership position:
Section 2: Information on you:
Gender: Female Male
Approximate Age: 20s 30s 40s 50s 60's
Education Level: Bachelors Degree Masters Degree JD Doctorate
Number of years in student affairs :
Number of years working with the current Dean/Director in his/her current position:
102

APPENDIX G
MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE ITEMS

MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE
SAMPLE ITEMS
Item Number
9.
Talks optimistically about the future
0 12 3 4
(Inspirational Motivation / Transformational)
15.
Spends time teaching and coaching
0 12 3 4
(Individualized Consideration / Transformational)
24.
Keeps track of all mistakes
0 12 3 4
(Management-by-Exception Active / Transactional)
38.
Gets me to do more than I expected to do
0 12 3 4
(Extra Effort / Outcomes)
45.
Leads a group that is effective
0 12 3 4
(Effectiveness / Outcomes)
Reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, MIND GARDEN INC., 1690
Woodside Road #202, Redwood City, CA 94061 USA www.mindgarden.com from the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J.
Avolio. Copyright 1995, 2000 by Bernard M Bass and Bruce J Avolio. All rights
reserved. Further reproduction is prohibited without the Publishers written consent.
104

REFERENCES
Altbach. P. G. (2001). The American academic model in comparative perspective. In P.
G. Altbach. P. J. Gumport, & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), In defense of American
higher education (pp. 11-37). Baltimore. MD: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Ambler, D. A. (1993). Developing internal management structures. In M. J. Barr &
Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 107-120).
San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass.
Amone, M. (2004, January 16). State spending on college drops for the first time in 11
years [Government & Politics]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A24.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma and beyond.
In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging
leadership vistas (pp. 29-49). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Avolio, B. J.. & Bass, B. M. (1991). The full-range of leadership development.
Binghamton, NY: State University of New York, Center for Leadership Studies.
Avolio, B. J.. Bass. B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire:
Technical report. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441 -
462.
Avolio, B. J.. Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to
the bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 219-227.
Avolio, B. J., Waldman. D. A., & Einstein, W. O. (1988). Transformational leadership in
a management game simulation: Impacting the bottom line. Group and
Organization Studies, 13, 59-80.
105

106
Balderston, F. E. (1995). Managing todays university: Strategies for viability, change,
and excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barr, M. J. (1990). Growing staff diversity and changing career paths. In M. J. Barr. M.
L. Upcraft, & Associates (Eds.), New futures for student affairs: Building a vision
for professional leadership and practice (pp. 160-177). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership
training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 827-832.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The
Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, Research, and
managerial applications. New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational
impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational
leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, #(1),
9-32.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Sample multifactor leadership questionnaire report.
Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass. B. M., & Avolio. B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). You can drag a horse to water but you cant make it
drink. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5, 1-17.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional
leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review 45,
5-34.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Goodheim, L. (1987). Biography and the assessment of
transformational leadership at the world class level. Journal of Management, 13,
7-20.

107
Bass, B. M Waldman. D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational
leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group and Organizational Studies, 12,
73-87.
Bender, B. E. (1980). Job satisfaction in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 18, 2-9.
Bensimon, E. M., Neuman, A., & Birnbaum, R. (1989). Making sense of administrative
leadership: the "L word in higher education (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Rep. No. 1). Washington, DC: George Washington University.
Blimling, G. S, & Whitt, E. J. (1999). Good practice in student affairs:
Principles to foster student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bonnen, J. T. (1998). The land grant idea and the evolving outreach university. In R. M.
Learner & L. K. Simon (Eds.), University community collaborations for the
twenty-first century: Outreach to scholarship for youth and families (pp. 25-70).
New York: Garland Publishing.
Boudreau, T. E. (1998). Universitas: The social restructuring of American undergraduate
education. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York:
Harper & Row.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate.
Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation.
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998).
Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America's research
universities. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York.
Brown, R. W. (1926). Dean Briggs. NY: Harper & Brothers.
Brubacher, J. S & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of
American colleges and universities (4th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Bums. J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Basss
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478.
Caple, R. B. (1998). To mark the beginning: A social history of college student affairs.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.

108
Carless, S. A. (1998). Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination
of superior leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex Roles, 39, 887-902.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2000). The Carnegie
classification of institutions of higher education. Retrieved October 9, 2002, from:
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classification/CIHE2000/
classification2000.htm
Carpenter, D. S. (1990). Developmental concerns in moving toward personal and
professional competence. In D. D. Coleman & J. E. Johnson (Eds.), The new
professional: A resource guide for new student affairs professionals and their
supervisors (pp. 1-60). Washington. DC: National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators.
Chemers, M. M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Cohen, A. M. (1998). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence and growth
of the contemporary system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crookston, B. (1974). The nomenclature dilemma: Titles of student affairs officers at
NASPA institutions. NASPA Journal, 77(3), 3-6.
Daft, R. L. (1999). Leadership theory and practice. Orlando, FL: The Dry den Press.
Deegan, W. L. (1981). Managing student affairs programs: Methods, models, and
muddles. Palm Springs, CA: ETC Publications.
Dinniman, A. E. (1977). Observations on the evolution of the student affairs deanship.
NASPA Journal, 74(4), 2-9.
Dowton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the revolutionary
process. New York: The Free Press.
Dessler, G. (1995). Managing organizations in an era of change. Orlando, FL: The
Dryden Press.
Dressel. P. L. (1981). Administrative leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Druskat, V. U. (1994). Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional
leadership in the Roman Catholic Church. Leadership Quarterly 5, 99-119.

109
Fenske, R. H. (1989). Evolution of the student services profession. In U. Delworth,
G. R. Hanson, & Associates (Eds.), Student Services: A Handbook for the
profession (25-56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fiedler, F. E. (1974). Leadership and effective management. Glenview, IL: Foresman.
Garland, P. H. (1985). Serving more than students: A critical need for college students
personnel services. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher
Education.
Geyer, A. L. J., & Steyrer, J. M. (1998). Transformational leadership and objective
performance in banks. Applied Psychology: An International Review 47, 397-420.
Goodson, J.R., McGee, G. W & Cashman, J. F. (1989). Situational leadership
prescriptions. Group and Organizational Studies, 14, 446-461.
Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: a critical review.
Leaderhip Quarterly, 8, 153-170.
Gulley, H. E. (1960). Discussion, conference, and group process. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Hartog, D. N., van Muijen, J., & Koopman, P.L. (1997). Tansactional vs.
transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19-35.
Hater, J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors and subordinates perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,
695-702.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior:
Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior:
Utilizing human resources (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of organizational behavior:
Utilizing human resources (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hilgert, R. L., & Haimann, T. (1991 J. Supervision: Concepts and practices of
management. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Co.

110
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of
consolidated-business-unit-performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891 -
902.
Howell, J. M & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 43, 243-269.
Howell, J. M & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technology innovation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317-341.
Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership
research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 88-102.
Hunt, J. G. & Liebscher, V. K. (1973). Leadership preference, leadership behavior, and
employee satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 59-
77.
Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management
Science, 28, 315-336.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL7: Users reference guide. Mooresville,
IN: Scientific Software International.
Jung, D. L, & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers cultural
orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of
Management Review 42, 208-228.
Keller. K. H. (1990). Education and the public research university. In R. Bjomson & M.
R. Waldman (Eds.), The university of the future. Columbus, OH: The Center for
Comparative studies.
Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and
development project groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489-501.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Harcourt Brace
College Publishers.
Kerr, C. (1991). The great transformation in higher education, 1960-1980. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and
measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375-403.

Ill
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational
leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 16, 319-333.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: moral stages and idea of
justice. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Komives, S. R. (1991). The relationship of same- and cross-gender work pairs to staff
performance and supervisor leadership in residence hall units. Sex Roles 24, 355-
363.
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (1995). Organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Leithwood, K. A., Tomlinson, D & Genge, M. (1996). Transformational school
leadership. In K. A. Leithwood (Ed.), International handbook on educational
leadership and administration (pp. 785-840). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Leonard, E. A. (1956). Origins of personnel services in American higher education.
Minneapolis, MN: The Jones Press, Inc.
Lewin, K. U., Lippitt, R & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271 -
299.
Lowe, K. B Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the
literature. Leadership Quarterly 7, 385-425.
Lucas, A. F. (2000). A teamwork approach to change in the academic department.
In A. F. Lucas (Ed.), Leading academic change (pp. 7-32). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Lucas, C. J. (1994). American higher education: A history. NY: St. Martins Press.
Maher, K. J. (1997). Gender-related stereotypes of transformational and transactional
leadership. Sex Roles 37, 209-225.
Malaney, G.D., & Osit, C. J. (1998). Continuous quality improvement in student affairs:
A survey of staff opinions on the work environment. NASPA Journal 35(4), 318-
330.
Mannheim, B. F., Rim, Y., & Grinberg, G. (1967). Instrumental status of supervisors as
related to workers' perceptions and expectations. Human Relations, 20, 387-397.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

112
Megginson, L. C., Mosley, D. C., & Pietri, Jr., P. H. (1989). Management concepts and
applications (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nahavandi, A. (1997). The art and science of leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ :
Prentice Hall, Inc.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges [NASULGC].
(1997). Returning to our roots: The student experience. Washington, DC: Author.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges [NASULGC].
(1998). Returning to our roots: Student access. Washington, DC: Author.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges [NASULGC].
(1999). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution. Washington, DC: Author.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges [NASULGC].
(2000). Returning to our roots: Toward a coherent campus. Washington, DC:
Author.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges [NASULGC].
(2001). Returning to our roots: Executive summaries of the reports of the Kellogg
Commission on the future of state and land-grant institutions. Washington, DC:
Author.
Neimark, M. K. (1999). If its so important, why wont they pay for it?: Public higher
education at the turn of the century. Monthly Review, 51, 20-31.
Peterson, M. W., Dill, D. D., & Mets, L. A. (1997). Planning and managing for a
changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rhatigan, J. J. (2000). The history and philosophy of student affairs. In M. J. Barr, M. K.
Desler, & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp.
3-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rentz, A. L. (1996). History of Student Affairs. In A. L. Rentz, & Associates (Eds.),
Student affairs practice in higher education (pp. 28-55). Springfield, IL: C. C.
Thomas.
Rhodes, F. H. T. (2001). The creation of the future: The role of the American university.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

113
Robillard, D. Jr. (2000). Toward a definition of deaning. In D. Robillard, Jr. (Ed.), New
directions for community colleges: No. 109. Dimensions of managing academic
affairs in the community college (pp. 3-8). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rogers, J. L. (1996). Leadership. In S. R. Komives, & D. B. Woodard, Jr. (Eds.),
Student services: A handbook for the profession (3rd ed., pp. 299-319). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ross, S. M, & Offerman, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of
personality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1078-1086.
Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens, GA:
University of Georgia Press.
Sandeen, A. (1996). Organization, functions, and standards of practice. In S. R.
Komives & D. B. Woodard, Jr. (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the
profession (3rd ed., pp. 435-457). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schroeder, C. C. (1999). Forging educational partnerships that advance student learning.
In G. S. Blimling, E. J. Whitt. & Associates (Eds.), Good practice in student
affairs: Principles to foster student learning (pp. 133-156). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schwartz, R. A. (1997). How deans of women became men. Review of Higher Education,
20, 419-436.
Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and
consideration. Journal of Management, 16, 693-703.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1991). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Shea, C. M & Howell, J. M. (1999). Charismatic leadership and task feedback: A
laboratory study of their effects on self-efficacy and task performance. Leadership
Quarterly, 10, 375-396.
Smith, P. (1990). Killing the spirit: Higher education in America. New York: Penguin
Books.
Sosik, J. J. (1997). Effects of transformational leadership and anonymity on idea
generation in computer-mediated groups. Group and Organization Management,
22, 460-487.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the
Literature. Journal of Psychology, 2, 535-571.

114
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
Thelin, J. R. (1996). Historical overview of American higher education. In S. R. Komives
& D. B. Woodward (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp.
3-21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tuttle, T. C. (1994). Is total quality worth the effort? How do we know? In D. Seymour
(Ed.), Total quality management on campus: Is it worth doing? (New Directions
for Higher Education No. 86, pp. 21-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vroom, V. H & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburg, PA:
University of Pittsburg Press.
Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent reward
behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group and
Organizational Studies, 15, 381-391.
Winston, R. B., & Miller, T. K. (1991). Human resources management: Professional
preparation and staff selection. In T. K. Miller & R. B. Winston (Eds.),
Administration and leadership in student affairs: Actualizing student development
in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 449-493). Muncie, IN: Accelerated
Development, Inc.
Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B & Jolson, M. A. (1997). Women and
transformational and contingent reward leadership: a multiple-level-of-analysis
perspective. Academy of Management Journal. 40, 205-223.
Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership
and performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Ouarterly, 4(1), 81-
108.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of
Management, 15, 251-289.
Yukl, G. A. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Richard A. Barth is the Interim Associate Vice President for Student Affairs at the
University of Florida. His prior professional experience includes serving as Dean of
Students at Carthage College, Associate Dean of Students at Florida State University,
Assistant Director of Campus Programs at the University of Alabama, and Area
Coordinator for Richmond College at the University of Richmond.
Richard earned a Bachelor of Science in psychology from the University of
Alabama in December of 1987 and a Master of Arts in counselor education from the
University of Alabama in August of 1989. He earned a Juris Doctor from the University
of Alabama School of Law in May of 1996.
115

I certify that I have read this study and that it is my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
C. Arthur Sandeen, Chair
Professor of Educational Leadership,
Policy, and Foundations
I certify that I have read this study and that it is my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor 'of Philosophy.
Lamont A. Flowers
Assistant Professor of Educational
Leadership, Policy, and Foundations
I certify that I have read this study and that it is my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fulfy adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
AVayneT). Griffin
Clinical Assistant Prof
Counselor Education
I certify that I have read this study and that it is my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philoso
y adequate, in scope and quality,
loiieymar
Professor of Eductional Leadership,
Policy, and Foundations
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of
Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
May 2004
Dean, Graduate School



22
of qualities or characteristics attributed to those who are perceived to
successfully employ such influence, (p. 315)
These definitions imply that anyone who is able to influence others toward
objectives can be considered a leader. However, formal leadership is tied to a
hierarchical position. Y ukl (1994) used the term leader to refer to people who occupy
positions in which they are expected to exert leadership (p. 5). This was supported by
Nahavandi (1997) stating the presence of leaders often assumes some form of hierarchy
within a group (p. 4).
Theories of Leadership
Although leadership has been the subject of debate, examination, and
investigation for thousands of years, it has only been a topic of continuous formal
analysis by scholars for the last 100 years with several of the leadership theories being
developed in the past 50 years. The leadership theories and research can be classified as
trait, behavioral, situational, and transformational approaches. The evolution of
leadership theories and leadership research can be seen by reviewing these major
categories.
Trait Theories
Many of the earliest leadership investigations centered on identifying and
measuring the specific personal characteristics of leaders based on the assumption that
great leaders are born, not made (Megginson, Mosley, & Peitri, 1989; Kreitner & Kinicki,
1995). This approach is commonly referred to as the trait theory of leadership and it
dominated the study of leadership during the first half of the twentieth century. Studies
employing the trait approach attempted to identify distinctive physical or psychological
characteristics related to leadership behavior. The majority of these studies compared


55
Table 4-1 Summary of Respondents and Deans Age Distribution
Age Category
20
30
40
50
60
% of Deans3
0.00
6.45
51.61
35.48
6.45
% of Respondents*1
23.95
40.62
25.00
7.92
3.12
Note.
*n = 31. bn = 96.
The majority of the respondents were female with 57.3% of the sample being
female and 42.7% being male. Of the deans, 45.2% were female and 54.8% were male.
The respondents and deans educational levels are presented in Table 4-2. The deans
educational levels were Baccalaureate Degree only (BS/BA) 0.0%, Masters Degree
19.3%, Juris Doctor (JD) 9.7% and Doctorate (PhD/EdD) 71.0%. The respondents
educational levels were Baccalaureate Degree (BS/BA) 10.4%, Masters Degree 67.7%,
Juris Doctor (JD) 5.2% and Doctorate (PhD/EdD) 16.6%.
Table 4-2 Summary of Educational Level for Deans and Respondents
BA/BS
MS/MA
JD
PhD/EdD
Deans %
0.0
19.3
9.7
71.0
Respondents %
10.4
67.7
5.2
16.6
Note.
*n = 31. bn = 96.
The average length of time the respondents had worked in student affairs was 7.25
years. The average length of time the respondents had been working under the dean they
evaluated for the study was 3.8 years. The deans that were evaluated for the study had
served in the dean position for an average of 7.6 years.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 examined the extent to which deans of students exhibit
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors as rated by their


58
members perception of leader effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short).
The initial analysis was performed between the dependent variable (leader
effectiveness) and the composite independent variables of transformational leadership,
transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership using standard multiple regression
analysis. The analysis was performed using both SAS Regression and SPSS Regression.
Further analyses were conducted using SAS multiple regression for full and reduced
models and all possible subsets.
The full and reduced model regression and the all-possible subsets regression
focused on the components in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) that
compose the composite independent variables of transformational leadership,
transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership. The transformational leadership
section of the MLQ is composed of five scales of four items each. The component
behaviors for transformational leadership are idealized influence-attributed (II-A),
idealized influence-behavior (II-B), inspirational motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation
(IS), and individualized consideration (IC). The transactional leadership section of the
MLQ is composed of three scales of four items each. The component behaviors for
transactional leadership are contingent reward (CR), management-by-exception active
(MBE-A), and management-by-exception passive (MBE-P). The laissez-faire (LF)
leadership section of the MLQ is a single scale with four items.
Assumptions were tested by examining normal probability plots of residuals and
scatter diagrams of residuals versus predicted residuals. No violations of normality,


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ELBR5V544_ITIQIP INGEST_TIME 2014-10-07T00:37:35Z PACKAGE AA00025714_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


78
effective can depend to some extent on the work environment, the organization, the goals
and tasks involved, and the distribution of power between the leaders and followers
(Bass, 1998).
Among the several factors that could have contributed to the relatively high mean
score for contingent reward is the possible stability of the deans offices due to the deans
length of time in the dean position. For this study, the average number of years the deans
of students had served in their position was 7.6 years. Therefore, due to their years of
experience in the dean position, the environment faced by the deans was a fairly
predictable and stable environment. Bass (1998) states that transactional leadership is
likely to emerge more frequently and be relatively effective when leaders are engaged in
a stable and predictable environment. What makes the dean of students position unique,
is that while it may operate in a stable and predictable environment, it often deals with
conditions of crisis and uncertainty which creates conditions that research indicates
makes the emergence of transformational leadership behaviors more likely (Bass, 1998).
Therefore, the high mean scores for the transformational leadership behaviors as well as
the transactional leadership behavior of contingent reward may be a reflection of the
environment within which the deans of students serve as leaders.
Additionally, the nature of the leader-subordinate relationship within a dean of
students office may provide some insight to the relatively high contingent reward mean
score. Bass (1998) speculates that in situations where the subordinate has power and
information, transactional leadership will emerge more frequently than in situations
where the leader retains most of the power and information. Sandeen (1996) states that
the dean of students often overseas several of the common functions found in a student


50
All data was collected via the self-administered MLQ and the researcher-developed
demographic information sheet that were mailed to each member of the sample as part of
the survey packet. Participants, through the letter of introduction, were assured of
confidentiality and anonymity in the final reporting of results.
Survey packets were mailed to the professional staff members within the dean of
students office or its equivalent at each of the 38 institutions in the study during the late
spring and early summer of 2003. For institutions that had four or fewer professional
staff members in the Dean of Students Office, survey packets were sent to each
professional staff member. For institutions that had over four professional staff members
in their Dean of Students Office, four staff members were randomly selected and the
survey packets sent to those four staff members.
The survey packet included a cover letter, an informed consent form, a copy of
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5x-Short), a demographic
information sheet, and a postage-paid return envelope. Twenty-one days after the initial
mailing a duplicate packet containing a reminder letter was sent to all members of the
sample who had not returned the survey packet materials. Twenty-four days after the
second mailing, a third and final packet was mailed to the remaining non-respondents.
Data Analysis
Research Question 1 examined the degree to which deans of students exhibited
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors. Data collected by
MLQ was analyzed using SPSS to compute the mean scores and standard deviations for
the leadership scales of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.


11
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration. Three behavioral constructs identify transactional leadership: contingent
reward, management-by-exception active, and management-by-exception passive. The
model also includes a leadership behavior referred to as laissez-faire leadership, the most
inactive form of leadership where a leader chooses not to guide performance when the
situation would warrant guidance (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Bass is credited as being the
first researcher to operationalize a transformational leadership model into a measurement
instrument by his development of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Chemers,
1997; Conger. 1989).
Bass (1985) conception of transformational leadership and transactional
leadership contrasts with that of Burns (1978) who considered transformational and
transactional leadership practices as opposite ends of a continuum. Bass (1985) contends
that most leaders display transformational and transactional leadership in varying
degrees. Transformational leadership augments transactional leadership. Transactional
practices on their own do little to bring about the enhanced commitment and extra effort
required for the positive change that will occur when the members of an organization
experience transformational leadership (Leithwood et al., 1996).
Bass and Avolio (1997), in establishing the reliability and validity of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire as an instrument that can measure transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors as defined by their Full Range of
Leadership model, utilized a validation samples set and a cross-validation samples set.
The validation samples were collected from several different types of organizational
settings including military, business, political, non-profit, educational, and public service


114
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
Thelin, J. R. (1996). Historical overview of American higher education. In S. R. Komives
& D. B. Woodward (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp.
3-21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tuttle, T. C. (1994). Is total quality worth the effort? How do we know? In D. Seymour
(Ed.), Total quality management on campus: Is it worth doing? (New Directions
for Higher Education No. 86, pp. 21-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vroom, V. H & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburg, PA:
University of Pittsburg Press.
Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent reward
behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group and
Organizational Studies, 15, 381-391.
Winston, R. B., & Miller, T. K. (1991). Human resources management: Professional
preparation and staff selection. In T. K. Miller & R. B. Winston (Eds.),
Administration and leadership in student affairs: Actualizing student development
in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 449-493). Muncie, IN: Accelerated
Development, Inc.
Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B & Jolson, M. A. (1997). Women and
transformational and contingent reward leadership: a multiple-level-of-analysis
perspective. Academy of Management Journal. 40, 205-223.
Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership
and performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Ouarterly, 4(1), 81-
108.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of
Management, 15, 251-289.
Yukl, G. A. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.


10
Returning to Our Roots: The Student Experience, state, We live in an age of
transformational not technical change. Our leadership, like our institutions, must become
transformational as well" (NASULGC, 1997, p. 21). Therefore, transformational
leadership theory is particularly applicable to the contemporary dean of students role
within the institution.
Transformational leadership was first distinguished from transactional leadership
by Dowton (1973). However, it was the work of Bums (1978) that first drew major
attention to the ideas associated with transformational leadership (Leithwood, Tomlinson,
& Genge. 1996). Bums (1978) conceptualized two factors, transactional and
transformational, to differentiate ordinary from extraordinary leadership. Transactional
(ordinary) leadership is based on an exchange relationship in which follower compliance
(effort, productivity, and loyalty) is exchanged for expected rewards. Transformational
(extraordinary) leaders raise followers consciousness levels about the importance and
value of designated outcomes and ways of achieving them. They also motivate followers
to transcend their own immediate self-interest for the sake of the mission and vision of
the organization. Followers confidence levels are raised and their needs broadened by
the leader to support their development to higher potential. Such total engagement
(emotional, intellectual and moral) encourages followers to develop and perform beyond
expectations (Bums, 1978; Bass, 1985; Sergiovanni, 1991).
Bass (1985) operationalized the work of Bums (1978) by developing a model of
transformational and transactional leadership that he later revised with Bruce Avolio and
that is now referred to as the Full Range of Leadership model (Bass & Avolio, 1994).
The model identifies four distinct transformational leadership behavior constructs:


62
members' satisfaction with their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short).
The initial analysis was performed between the dependent variable (satisfaction
with the leader) and the composite independent variables of transformational leadership,
transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership using standard multiple regression
analysis. The analysis was performed using both SAS Regression and SPSS Regression.
Further analyses were conducted using SAS multiple regression for full and reduced
models and all-possible subsets.
The full and reduced model regression and the all-possible subsets regression
focused on the components in the MLQ that compose the composite independent
variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire
leadership. The transformational leadership section of the MLQ is composed of five
scales of four items each. The component behaviors for transformational leadership are
idealized influence-attributed (II-A), idealized influence-behavior (II-B), inspirational
motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS), and individualized consideration (IC). The
transactional leadership section of the MLQ is composed of three scales of four items
each. The component behaviors for transactional leadership are contingent reward (CR),
management-by-exception-active (MBE-A), and management-by-exception passive
(MBE-P). The laissez-faire (LF) leadership section of the MLQ is a single scale with
four items.
Assumptions were tested by examining normal probability plots of residuals and
scatter diagrams of residuals versus predicted residuals. No violations of normality,


82
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short) was done using SAS and SPSS
standard regression.
The analysis revealed that the model significantly predicted satisfaction with the
leader with composite independent variables accounting for 74.1% of the variance for
satisfaction with the leader. The independent variables of transformational leadership
and laissez-faire leadership were significant at the p < .05 level. The independent
variable of transactional leadership was not significant at the p < .05 level.
Transformational leadership was the strongest predictor of satisfaction with the leader
with a standardized regression coefficient of .700.
There was a significant negative relationship between laissez-faire behavior and
satisfaction with the leader with laissez-faire leadership having a standardized regression
coefficient of -.283. This indicates that professional staff members who perceive their
dean as frequently exhibiting laissez-faire leadership behaviors are less likely to be
satisfied with their dean as a leader.
Further analyses were performed on the outcome variable of satisfaction with the
leader using SAS full and reduced model regression and SAS all possible subsets
regression. These analyses used the component behaviors of transformational and
transactional leadership to examine which component behaviors were having the
strongest influence on predicting satisfaction with the leader. The full and reduced model
regression found that the transformational leadership components significantly added to
the predictive accuracy of satisfaction with the leader. The transformational leadership
behavior components that were found to be significant in the full model at the p < .05
level, were idealized influence-attributed and idealized influence-behavior. The


109
Fenske, R. H. (1989). Evolution of the student services profession. In U. Delworth,
G. R. Hanson, & Associates (Eds.), Student Services: A Handbook for the
profession (25-56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fiedler, F. E. (1974). Leadership and effective management. Glenview, IL: Foresman.
Garland, P. H. (1985). Serving more than students: A critical need for college students
personnel services. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher
Education.
Geyer, A. L. J., & Steyrer, J. M. (1998). Transformational leadership and objective
performance in banks. Applied Psychology: An International Review 47, 397-420.
Goodson, J.R., McGee, G. W & Cashman, J. F. (1989). Situational leadership
prescriptions. Group and Organizational Studies, 14, 446-461.
Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: a critical review.
Leaderhip Quarterly, 8, 153-170.
Gulley, H. E. (1960). Discussion, conference, and group process. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Hartog, D. N., van Muijen, J., & Koopman, P.L. (1997). Tansactional vs.
transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19-35.
Hater, J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors and subordinates perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,
695-702.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior:
Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior:
Utilizing human resources (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of organizational behavior:
Utilizing human resources (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hilgert, R. L., & Haimann, T. (1991 J. Supervision: Concepts and practices of
management. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Co.


26
Situational Theories
The limitations of trait and behavioral theories led researchers to explore a new
direction in leadership study. The new focus was on the situation in which leadership
occurred (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). The concept behind situational or contingency
leadership theories is that leader effectiveness does not depend on who the leader is or on
the leader exhibiting a high degree of certain behaviors. Instead, effective leadership is
based on engaging in different combinations of task and relationship behavior in different
situations. The appropriate style of leadership to be used depends on the situation, the
people, the organization, or other environmental factors (Megginson et al, 1989).
Research conducted by Fiedler (1974), McGregor (1960), Mannheim, Rim and
Grinberg (1967), and Hunt and Liebscher (1973) concluded that work settings that vary
in task structure and climate foster differential leader behavior. Vroom and Yetton (1973)
proposed that it is the leaders decision making behavior that affects group performance.
According to their approach the effectiveness of a decision making procedure depends on
aspects of the situation such as the likelihood that followers will cooperate if allowed to
participate in the decision making process.
One of the most widely cited situational approaches is Hersey and Blanchards
situational leadership theory. Hersey and Blanchard (1977, 1988) postulated a model that
identifies the readiness level of the followers and links it to the willingness and ability of
the followers to achieve the goals of the organization. Situational leadership theory takes
into consideration the followers developmental level in order to determine the leaders
approach to accomplishing tasks. There are four categories of leader task and
relationship behavior for this model: (a) high task/low relationship, in which actions are


APPENDIX C
INFORMATION LETTER FOR DEANS OF STUDENTS


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy
LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS AMONG DEANS OF STUDENTS AT PUBLIC
RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES IN THE SOUTHEAST
By
Richard A. Barth
May 2004
Chair: C. Arthur Sandeen
Major Department: Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations
This study examined the leadership behaviors of deans of students at public
research universities in the southeast using Bass and Avolios Full Range of Leadeship
Model. A sample ( = 96) of student affairs professional staff members working within
dean of students offices at 31 public research universities in the southeast completed the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5x-Short) to examine the relationship
between transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors of deans
of students and the outcome variables of satisfaction with the leader, perception of leader
effectiveness, and followers willingness to exert extra effort.
SPSS and SAS statistical software programs were used to run multiple linear
regression analyses on the data. Deans of students exhibited transformational leadership
behaviors more frequently than they exhibited transactional behaviors, which they
exhibited more frequently than laissez-faire behavior. The transformational behavior of
idealized influence-attributed, the transactional leadership behavior of contingent reward.
Vll


33
the leader. Specifically, the augmentation effect states that transformational leadership
behaviors should account for unique variance in followers' ratings of the outcome
variables over and above that accounted for by transactional leadership (Bass, 1998).
The Optimal Leader Profile
According to the Full Range of Leadership Model, every leader displays
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors to some degree
(Bass, 1998). However, the leader with an optimal profile infrequently displays laissez-
faire leadership and displays successively higher frequencies of the transactional
behaviors of management-by-exception passive, management-by-exception active, and
contingent reward. The optimal leader profile displays the five transformational
leadership behaviors of idealized influence-attributed, idealized influence-behavior,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration the
most frequently (Bass, 1998).
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
According to Chemers (1997), the research of Bass and his associates provided
the support that was needed for applying transformational leadership concepts to
complex, formal organizations. Both Chemers (1997) and Conger (1989) give Bass
credit for being the first researcher to operationalize a transformational leadership model
into a measurement instrument by his development of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ).
Bass (1985) developed the MLQ to assess the leadership constructs of
transformational and transactional leadership explicated by his theory. The MLQ was
initially generated by exploratory methods and then tested in the field using factor


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Richard A. Barth is the Interim Associate Vice President for Student Affairs at the
University of Florida. His prior professional experience includes serving as Dean of
Students at Carthage College, Associate Dean of Students at Florida State University,
Assistant Director of Campus Programs at the University of Alabama, and Area
Coordinator for Richmond College at the University of Richmond.
Richard earned a Bachelor of Science in psychology from the University of
Alabama in December of 1987 and a Master of Arts in counselor education from the
University of Alabama in August of 1989. He earned a Juris Doctor from the University
of Alabama School of Law in May of 1996.
115


27
initiated and decisions made by the leader; (b) high task/high relationship, wherein the
leader provides a considerable amount of direction but also listens to input from
followers; (c) low task/high relationship, which incorporates a shift in problem-solving
from the leader to the followers; and (d) low relationship/low task which results in almost
total delegation of decision making to followers. The appropriate category of leader
behavior is based upon the followers readiness level as it relates to the task to be
accomplished (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). Therefore, this model requires a high degree
of discernment on the part of leaders.
Situational leadership theory has been heavily criticized. The major criticism is
that the model lacks a sound theoretical foundation for the hypothesized relationships
among variables (Graeff, 1997). Other researchers have criticized the model by stating
that leader use of supportive behavior is an important contribution to effective leadership
at all levels of subordinate readiness (Goodson, McGee, & Cashman, 1989).
Transformational Leadership
Burns (1978) conducted a comprehensive study of leadership and concluded that
all leadership could be classified as either transactional or transformational. He stated
that a leader-follower interaction that is transactional in nature has the leader offering a
reward for the expected valued response of the follower. Therefore, in transactional
leadership, motivation is achieved when the leader is able to appeal to the self-interest of
the followers. Incentives and rewards are used for influencing motivation. Beyond the
achievement of their related goals, both leader and follower experience no enduring
relationship (Burns, 1978). By contrast, transforming leadership moves to a level of
morality in that both leaders and followers so engage with one another that they raise


7
been slow to change and public trust continues to erode (Boudreau, 1998; NASULGC,
1997).
Observers of American higher education have written extensively on the role that
leaders in academic affairs must play in addressing the challenges higher education faces
and implementing the necessary changes. However, these writers address the issues
facing higher education while giving little or no attention to the role student affairs
leaders can or should play in assisting an institution with making undergraduate
education the first priority (e.g., Lucas, 2000; Balderston, 1995; Peterson, Dill, & Mets,
1997). Boudreau (1998) in his book, Universitas: The Social Restructuring of American
Undergraduate Education, fails to mention student affairs and the role it plays on campus
even when addressing the issue of students' drug and alcohol use impacting the
classroom experience. Surprisingly, the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and
Land-Grant Universities in its Returning to Our Roots series of reports fails to
specifically or clearly address the critical role student affairs may play in the lives of
students (NASULGC, 1997, 1998. 1999, 2000, 2001).
While some commentators and reform reports have failed to stress the important
role student affairs must play in addressing the changing environment of higher
education, others have clearly recognized this role. Boyer (1987) devotes an entire
section of his book, College: The Undergraduate Experience in America, to life outside
of the classroom and states that the college of quality remains a place where the
curricular and cocurricular are viewed as having a relationship to each other (p. 195).
Schroeder (1999) stresses that in responding to the pressure for improved undergraduate


APPENDIX D
INFORMATION LETTER FOR PARTICIPANTS


23
leaders with non-leaders to identify differences that existed with respect to their physical
characteristics, personalities, and abilities (Yukl, 1989).
Prior to World War II, hundreds of leadership trait studies were conducted
identifying dozens of leadership traits (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995). Stogdill (1948)
reviewed and synthesized the results of over 120 of these studies and came to the
conclusion that no specific traits or personal characteristics stood out as certain, or even
strong, indicators of leadership. Stogdills findings brought criticism to the trait theories
and initiated a shift from focusing on traits to focusing on the behavior of leaders
(Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995).
Behavioral Theories
During World War II, as both a reaction to the criticism of trait research and the
burgeoning human relations movement, behavioral theories of leadership began to
emerge (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995). The concept behind behavioral leadership theory is
that group effectiveness is directly affected by leader behavior. Studies in this area focus
on identifying patterns of behavior often referred to as leadership styles that enable
leaders to effectively influence others (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995).
The studies conducted by Lewin and his associates (Lewin, Lippit, & White,
1939) in the 1930s are considered the precursor to the behavioral approach (Daft, 1999).
Lewin et al. (1939) identified the styles of leadership as autocratic, democratic, and
laissez-faire. According to Daft (1999), an autocratic leader is one who tends to
centralize authority and derive power from position, control of rewards, and coercion. A
democratic leader delegates authority to others, encourages participation, relies on
subordinates knowledge for completion of tasks, and depends on subordinate respect for


and laissez-faire behavior were significant predictors at the p < .05 level for the outcome
variable of leader effectiveness. The transformational behaviors of idealized influence-
attributed and idealized influence-behavior, the transactional behavior of contingent
reward, and laissez-faire behavior were significant predictors at the p < .05 level for the
outcome variable of satisfaction with the leader. The transformational behaviors of
idealized influence-attributed, idealized influence-behavior, and individual consideration,
along with the transactional behavior of contingent reward and laissez-faire behavior,
were significant predictors at the p < .05 level for the outcome variable of willingness to
exert extra effort. Transformational leadership behaviors accounted for unique variance
in professional staff members' ratings of the outcome variables above that accounted for
by transactional and laissez-faire leadership. The findings support the theoretical
prediction of the Full Range of Leadership model that leaders who are more
transformational and less transactional are more effective as leaders and more satisfying
to their followers. There was no significant difference in how male and female deans of
students were rated overall by their professional staff members and there was no
significant difference in the way male and female professional staff members rated their
deans.
viii


34
analysis (Bass, 1985). The MLQ has undergone several modifications to answer
criticisms about its validity and to be a better gauge of the full range of leadership
(Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995). The current form of the MLQ measures five
transformational leadership constructs, three transactional leadership constructs, and one
nonleadership construct. The nine scales are (a) idealized influence-attributed, (b)
idealized influence-behavior, (c) inspirational motivation, (d) intellectual stimulation, (e)
individualized consideration, (f) contingent reward, (g) management-by-exception
(active), (h) management-by-exception (passive), and (i) laissez-faire leadership (Avolio
et al, 1995). The first five scales refer to transformational leadership, the next three to
transactional leadership, and the last scale to nonleadership. The MLQ also measures
three outcomes of leadership: (a) extra effort of followers, (b) effectiveness of the leader,
and (c) follower satisfaction with the leader (Avolio et al, 1995).
The MLQ Hierarchy of Correlations
The Full Range of Leadership model predicts a hierarchy of correlations of the
MLQ components with the outcome variables of leader effectiveness, satisfaction with
the leader, and willingness to exert extra effort. The predicted hierarchy of correlations
states transformational behaviors will have higher correlations with the outcome variables
than contingent reward. Contingent reward will have higher correlations than
management-by-exception active, which will have higher correlations than management-
by-exception passive. Laissez-faire leadership will have the lowest correlations scores
(Bass & Avolio, 1997).


59
linearity, or homoscedasticity of residuals were detected. In addition, box plots revealed
no evidence of outliers.
For the standard multiple regression analysis, no interaction effects between the
independent variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and
laissez-faire leadership were found. The regression analysis revealed that the model
significantly predicted leader effectiveness, F(3,92) = 137.71, /?< .0001. R2 for the model
was .818, and adjusted R2 was .812, indicating that the model accounts for 81.2% of the
variance for leadership effectiveness. Table 4-4 displays the unstandardized regression
coefficients (B), the standardized regression coefficients (|3), the observed t value (/), the
significance level (p), and the semipartial correlations (sr) for each variable.
All three of the independent variables were significant at the p < .05 level. For
transformational leadership. (3 = .651, t = 12.22, and p .0001. For transactional
leadership, [3 = .159, t = 2.99, and p = .004. For laissez-faire leadership, p = -.414, t = -
6.85, and p = .0001. Comparing across variables, transformational leadership was the
strongest predictor of leader effectiveness, and there was a significant negative
relationship between laissez-faire behavior and leadership effectiveness.
Under Bass and Avolios (1997) Full Range of Leadership model, the dependent
variable of leader effectiveness is higher for leaders who are perceived as having higher
Table 4-4 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Leader
Effectiveness
Variable
B
P
t
P
sr
Transformational
.863
.651
12.22
.0001*
.544
Transactional
.351
.159
2.99
.004*
.133
Laissez-Faire
-.441
-.414
-6.85
.0001*
-.305
Note, n = 96. Rr
*p < .05.
.818.


19
Limitations
1. The sample composite of deans of students from public research universities
might not be representative of deans of students as a whole.
2. The subordinates who participate in this study might respond to the MLQ as
they believe they should and not answer truthfully.
3. The study will utilize only one measurement of leadership style, the MLQ
Short Form 5x.
Assumptions
1. Professional staff members within a dean of students office are able to identify
leadership qualities based on their perceptions of the dean's effectiveness.
2. Professional staff members within a dean of students office are able to
evaluate their satisfaction with the dean.
3. Professional staff members within a dean of students office are able to
evaluate their willingness to exert extra effort.
4. All subjects responded truthfully and accurately.
Organization of the Study
This study comprises five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the studys justification,
its purpose, the problem that it addressed, and the research questions that were tested. In
chapter 2, pertinent literature is reviewed with a focus on leadership theory,
transformational leadership, and information on the development and use of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. This chapter also contains a review of the history
of the student affairs dean. Chapter 3 describes the method that was used for answering
the research questions. Chapter 4 presents the results of the statistical analyses that were
used to answer the research questions. Chapter 5 provides the overall findings of the
study, conclusions drawn from the statistical analyses, implications of the results, and
recommendations for future research.


46
item responses. The values are: 0 = Not at all, 1 = Once in a while, 2 = Sometimes, 3 =
Fairly often, 4 = Frequently, if not always. A lower score indicates that the leaders
behaviors were perceived to be inconsistent with the description of the leadership
component and a higher score is indicative of the perception of the presence of behaviors
consistent with the leadership component.
Participants were also asked to complete a researcher-developed demographic
information sheet. The demographic information sheet requested information on the
deans of students' gender, age, educational level, and number of years in current
leadership position. It also requested information on respondents gender, age,
educational level, number of years in student affairs, and number of years working with
their current dean.
Reliability and Validity
In their instrument manual, Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Bass and Avolio (1997) summarized the results of
the tests employed for examining the MLQ 5Xs construct validity and reliability. For
their study. Bass and Avolio (1997) used a validation sample and a cross-validation
sample. The sample studies for both the validation sample and the cross-validation
sample were conducted by independent researchers and were based on data generated by
subordinates who evaluated their supervisors within a broad range of organizations and at
varying levels within the organizations (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Table 3-1 gives a
description of the validation samples set and the cross-validation samples set.
The scale scores for both the validation and cross-validation sets of samples are
provided by Bass and Avolio (1997) and are presented in Table 3-2. Reliabilities for


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The federal government and the states began showing an interest in distinguishing
between public and private colleges soon after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution
(Rudolph, 1990; Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Several states established
nondenominational institutions between 1782 and 1820, beginning with Georgia, North
Carolina, Tennessee, and Vermont establishing state-chartered and state-supported
institutions before 1800 (Rudolph, 1990). The early enthusiasm for establishing state
institutions of higher education developed from the publics need for more democratic
and secular institutions that could be held accountable for fulfilling the needs and
objectives of the state (Rudolph, 1990). These initiatives indicated that higher education
was viewed as being essential to the public good and that state governments were
concerned about religiously governed private colleges dictating the national educational
agenda (Rudolph, 1990; Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).
This early push toward development of public higher education lost momentum in
the aftermath of the famous U.S. Supreme Court case, Trustees of Dartmouth College v.
Woodward, which gave privately incorporated colleges control over their own policies
and activities (Rudolph. 1990). Private colleges were created throughout the United
States after the Dartmouth decision and enjoyed unprecedented autonomy (Rudolph,
1990). Rudolph (1990) stated that the Dartmouth decision "discouraged the friends of
strong state-supported and state-controlled institutions;... by encouraging [private]


68
Table 4-10 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Willingness to
Exert Extra Effort
Variable
B
P
t
P
sr
T ransformational
1.029
.699
11.07
.0001*
.584
Transactional
.387
.158
2.50
.014*
.132
Laissez-Faire
TT~ 77T"
-.334
-.283
-3.94
.0002*
-.208
*p < .05.
multiple regression analysis using full and reduced models was calculated to examine the
extent to which the transformational leadership component behaviors added to the
predictive accuracy for the dependent variable of willingness to exert extra effort when
they are added to the transactional component behaviors and laissez-faire behavior.
The transformational leadership components significantly added to the predictive
accuracy for the dependent variable of willingness to exert extra effort when they were
added to the components for transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership
behavior. The F-value was calculated at 13.32 withp < .05 and R2 increased by 16.3%
when the transformational scales were added to the reduced model. In addition, it was
found that of the variance in willingness to exert extra effort that was not associated with
transactional and laissez-faire leadership, 77.5% was associated with the transformational
leadership behaviors. Table 4-11 displays the unstandardized regression coefficients (B),
the standard errors (SE), the observed t values (t), and the significance levels ip) for the
component behaviors in the reduced model and the full model.
The component behaviors were analyzed using an all-possible subsets regression
with a R selection method to determine which groups of behaviors were the best
predictors of willingness to exert extra effort. Table 4-12 displays the R2 and the adjusted
R~ for the best one-behavior model through the model that includes all nine behaviors.


63
linearity, or homoscedasticity of residuals were detected. In addition, box plots revealed
no evidence of outliers.
For the standard multiple regression analysis, no interaction effects between the
independent variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and
laissez-faire leadership were found. The regression analysis revealed that the model
significantly predicted satisfaction with the leader, F(3,92) = 91.757, /?< .0001. R2 for the
model was .750, and adjusted R2 was .741, indicating that the model accounts for 74.1%
of the variance for satisfaction with the leader. Table 4-7 displays the unstandardized
regression coefficients (B), the standardized regression coefficients ((3), the observed t
value (/), the significance level (p), and the semipartial correlation (sr) for each variable.
The independent variables of transformational leadership and laissez-faire
leadership were significant at the p < .05 level. For transformational leadership, (3 = .700,
t = 11.22, andp = .001. For laissez-faire, (3 = -.283, t = -3.99, andp = .0001.
Transactional leadership was not significant at the p < .05 level with (3 = .052, t = 0.83,
and p = .410. Comparing across variables, transformational leadership was the strongest
predictor of leader effectiveness, and there was a significant negative relationship
between laissez-faire behavior and leadership effectiveness.
Under Bass and Avolio's (1997) Full Range of Leadership model, the dependent
variable of satisfaction with the leader is higher for leaders who are perceived as having
Table 4-7 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Satisfaction with
the Leader
Variable
B
P
t
P
sr
Transformational
.923
.700
11.22
.0001*
.585
Transactional
.113
.052
.83
.410
.043
Laissez-Faire
-.299
-.283
-3.99
.0001*
-.208
*p < .05.


39
deans of men formed the National Association of Deans and Advisors of Men in 1919
(Fenske, 1989; Caple, 1998). The National Association of Deans and Advisors of Men
later became the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators while in 1924
members of the existing gender specific associations founded the American College
Personnel Association (Rentz, 1996). Denniman (1977) noted that the formation of the
professional organizations, publications on student personnel work, and the development
of training programs for deans of students, were all indications of the deanships
professionalization and growing influence in higher education (p. 8).
After World War I, the student personnel movement experienced an expansion
driven by the acceptance and application of mental testing and counseling techniques
developed by the Army during the war (Fenske, 1989; Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Caple,
1998). As testing and counseling gained credibility as tools to help students, their use
became widespread. Employing counseling on a large scale offered the student personnel
movement a greater degree of professionalism while the development and use of new
pedagogical and psychological theories gave support to the functions of student personnel
work (Garland, 1985; Caple, 1998). The importance of students non-cognitive needs in
their overall development was becoming increasingly recognized resulting in the
expanding and diversifying of student affairs functions on college and university
campuses (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Caple, 1998).
The period proceeding and just following World War II saw an increase in the
emphasis placed on student affairs functions (Caple, 1998; Rhatigan, 2000). The
philosophical basis for the student affairs profession was sharpened during this period by
the publication of the American Council on Educations 1937 and 1949 reports titled The


67
linearity, or homoscedasticity of residuals were detected. In addition, box plots revealed
no evidence of outliers.
For the standard multiple regression analysis, an interaction effect between the
independent variables transformational leadership and transactional leadership was found
to be significant at the p < .05 level (p = .0114, / = -2.58). However, adding the
interaction term to the model only increased predictability of extra effort by 1.7%;
therefore, the interaction term was excluded from the model for the purposes of this
study. No other interaction effects between the independent variables were significant.
The regression analysis revealed that the model significantly predicted
willingness to exert extra effort, F(3,92) = 88.947, p < .0001. R: for the model was .744,
and adjusted R was .735, indicating that the model accounts for 73.5% of the variance
for willingness to exert extra effort. Table 4-10 displays the unstandardized regression
coefficients (B), the standardized regression coefficients ((3), the observed t value (t), the
significance level (p), and the semipartial correlation (sr) for each variable.
All three of the independent variables were significant at the p < .05 level. For
transformational leadership, (3 = .699, / = 11.07, and p = .0001. For transactional
leadership. |3 = .158, / = 2.50, and p = .014. For laissez-faire leadership, (3 = -.283, t = -
3.94, andp = .0002. Comparing across variables, transformational leadership was the
strongest predictor of willingness to exert extra effort, and there was a significant
negative relationship between laissez-faire behavior and willingness to exert extra effort.
Under Bass and Avolios (1997) Full Range of Leadership model, the dependent variable
of willingness to exert extra effort is higher for leaders who are perceived as having
higher scores on the transformational leadership component behaviors. Therefore, a


12
organizations (Bass & Avolio, 1997). The only connection any of the samples in the sets
had to higher education was the use of undergraduate students and the evaluation of
leaders in nursing schools. The samples did not include any studies using student affairs
practitioners at public research universities.
While research has shown transformational leadership behaviors to be
significantly and positively related to outcomes of willingness of followers to exert extra
effort, a perception that the leaders leadership behavior is effective, and an overall sense
of satisfaction with the leader on the part of the followers (Bass, 1985; Seltzer & Bass,
1990; Bass & Avolio, 1997; Bass 1998), the population sample for the current study may
differ from the validation samples in ways that may weaken or enhance the relationships
between leader behaviors and subordinate criterion variables. Researchers have noted
that variables related to subordinate, task, and organizational characteristics can serve to
weaken, neutralize or enhance the relationships between particular leader behaviors and
subordinate criterion variables (Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Howell. Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986).
Therefore, in evaluating the leadership behaviors of deans of students through the
extension of Bass and Avolios (1997) Full Range of Leadership model to student affair
practitioners, the issue of what evidence exists to suggest the theory is applicable to the
current studys population arises. This issue is important since the current study is
extending the theory to a new population as opposed to testing the theory itself. The
evidence supporting the extension of the theory to student affairs practitioners comes
from Bass' (1998) review of the research on transformational leadership over a wide
range of organizational types and settings.


5
meaningful careers, for service in a free society, and for access to the riches of
human experience, aspiration, and achievement;... it has trained the workforce,
enriched the individual experience,... enlightened public life,.. quickened the
social conscience and empowered and inspired each rising generation, (p. 1)
Kerr (1991), in writing specifically about the strengths of the American higher education
system that emerged during the 1980s after a twenty-year period of major transformation,
stated:
Higher education met the test of action from 1960 to 1980 overall quite well, and
emerged from this period clearly larger and mostly better. In particular, it was
providing more services to more people in the American society than ever before.
It had, in many ways, been transformed, and, in the process, it had become a more
central aspect of the life of the nation and was, consequently in turn, a greater
potential source of transformation for the nation, (p. 376)
But despite the strengths of the American university and the overw helming benefits it has
produced for society, it is facing unprecedented criticism (Altbach, 2001).
The public higher education system has been the target of harsh criticism for
being too expensive, inefficient, poorly managed, and for lacking performance criteria
(Neimark, 1999). Specifically, the research university has been consistently criticized for
failing to engage its undergraduate students in the teaching and learning process
(Blimling & Whitt, 1999; National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges [NASULGC], 2001). By encountering this criticism at a time when the
landscape of higher education is changing rapidly, the state research university faces a
tremendous challenge in forging a new path to regain public confidence. Strong and
effective leadership at every level of the university is a critical element of meeting this
challenge (Lucas, 2000; Blimling & Whitt, 1999; Boudreau, 1998).


8
education, academic personnel and student affairs personnel must work together to create
effective learning environments.
For public research universities that employ the dean of students title, the dean of
students is in a key leadership position to assist the institution in creating a seamless
learning environment for undergraduate students and making undergraduate education a
top priority. The dean of students often oversees several of the common functions found
in a student affairs division, holds the "primary educational role within student affairs,
and "has assumed the rather undefined but significant role of conscience of the campus
(Sandeen, 1996, p. 444).
A review of the literature in student affairs, including a search of published
dissertations, revealed no empirical studies conducted on the leadership behavior of deans
of students at public research universities. Overall, the contemporary dean of students
has received minimal scholarly attention in the literature (Robillard, 2000). As a result of
the lack of a research base, little is known about the leadership behavior of deans of
students and its relationship to the professional staff members perceptions of the
effectiveness of this behavior. This presents a significant gap in student affairs research
since the dean of students plays a major role in the student life program (Ambler, 1993)
and is responsible for many of the common student affairs functions (Sandeen. 1996).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership behaviors of deans of
students at public research universities in the southeast using Bass and Avolios (1997)
Full Range of Leadership model. The study investigated the relationship between
transformational, transactional, and laissez-fair leadership behaviors of the deans and the


106
Balderston, F. E. (1995). Managing todays university: Strategies for viability, change,
and excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barr, M. J. (1990). Growing staff diversity and changing career paths. In M. J. Barr. M.
L. Upcraft, & Associates (Eds.), New futures for student affairs: Building a vision
for professional leadership and practice (pp. 160-177). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership
training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 827-832.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The
Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, Research, and
managerial applications. New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational
impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational
leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, #(1),
9-32.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Sample multifactor leadership questionnaire report.
Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass. B. M., & Avolio. B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). You can drag a horse to water but you cant make it
drink. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5, 1-17.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional
leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review 45,
5-34.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Goodheim, L. (1987). Biography and the assessment of
transformational leadership at the world class level. Journal of Management, 13,
7-20.


61
Table 4-5 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Leader Effectiveness
Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors
Behavior
B
SE
t
P
Reduced3
CR
.870
.071
12.05
.0001
MBE-A
.070
.060
1.16
.2488
MBE-P
.059
.077
0.77
.4441
LF
-.487
.077
-6.30
.0001*
Fullb
II-A
.276
.077
1.77
.0005*
II-B
.178
.091
1.96
.0532
IM
-.076
.082
-0.94
.3523
IS
.071
.110
0.64
.5214
IC
.101
.106
0.95
.3452
CR
.419
.085
4.92
.0001*
MBE-A
.049
.052
0.94
.3505
MBE-P
.054
.066
0.82
.4122
LF
-.360
.068
-5.29
.0001*
Note.
an = 96. bn = 96.
R2 = .780. b/P =
*p< .05.
.863.
Table 4-6 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Leader Effectiveness
Number
in Model
R2
Adjusted R2
Behaviors in Model
1
.696
.693
II-A
2
.776
.771
II-A, CR
3
.841
.835
II-A, CR. LF
4
.853
.846
II-A, II-B, CR, LF
5
.857
.850
II-A, II-B, IC, CR. LF
6
.860
.851
II-A, II-B, IC, CR, MBE-A, LF
7
.862
.851
II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR, MBE-A, LF
8
.862
.850
II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR, MBE-A, MBE-P, LF
9
.863
.849
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, IC, CR. MBE-A, MBE-P, LF
Note, n = 96.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 examined whether there was a relationship between the
transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-
faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff


LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS AMONG DEANS OF STUDENTS AT PUBLIC
RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES IN THE SOUTHEAST
By
RICHARD A. BARTH
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2004


112
Megginson, L. C., Mosley, D. C., & Pietri, Jr., P. H. (1989). Management concepts and
applications (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nahavandi, A. (1997). The art and science of leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ :
Prentice Hall, Inc.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges [NASULGC].
(1997). Returning to our roots: The student experience. Washington, DC: Author.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges [NASULGC].
(1998). Returning to our roots: Student access. Washington, DC: Author.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges [NASULGC].
(1999). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution. Washington, DC: Author.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges [NASULGC].
(2000). Returning to our roots: Toward a coherent campus. Washington, DC:
Author.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges [NASULGC].
(2001). Returning to our roots: Executive summaries of the reports of the Kellogg
Commission on the future of state and land-grant institutions. Washington, DC:
Author.
Neimark, M. K. (1999). If its so important, why wont they pay for it?: Public higher
education at the turn of the century. Monthly Review, 51, 20-31.
Peterson, M. W., Dill, D. D., & Mets, L. A. (1997). Planning and managing for a
changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rhatigan, J. J. (2000). The history and philosophy of student affairs. In M. J. Barr, M. K.
Desler, & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp.
3-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rentz, A. L. (1996). History of Student Affairs. In A. L. Rentz, & Associates (Eds.),
Student affairs practice in higher education (pp. 28-55). Springfield, IL: C. C.
Thomas.
Rhodes, F. H. T. (2001). The creation of the future: The role of the American university.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge my dissertation committee for their assistance during the
dissertation process. Dr. Arthur Sandeen, my advisor, sustained me in this effort,
showing patience and understanding above the call of duty. Dr. Wayne Griffin, my
outside committee member, consistently reminded me of the importance of maintaining
balance in my life while working on the dissertation and provided a tremendous amount
of emotional support throughout the long process. Dr. David Honeyman and Dr. Lamont
Flowers were instrumental in assisting me with deciding on the dissertation topic and
helping me design the study.
I also wish to acknowledge Dr. Mike Rollo. Dr. Julie Athman. and Dr. Mike
Mironack. As colleagues and friends they kept me focused on the dissertation and
provided me with the advice and motivation needed to complete the journey.
A special note of thanks goes to Ms. Evelyn Chiang, who shared her time, talent,
and energy to aid me as I completed the dissertation. I truly appreciate the time she spent
teaching me about statistics and analyzing my data. Most of all, I appreciate her
unwavering support and friendship over the past two years.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents, Alvin and Dolores
Barth. They made many sacrifices throughout their lives to allow me to pursue my
educational goals. Through their hard work and commitment to education, they have
provided me with opportunities that they never had themselves. I am very fortunate to
have them as my parents.
ii
i


21
behavior of deans of students as rated by their subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
Definitions of Leadership
The perceived importance of leadership is evidenced by the volumes of
publications published on the topic. While there are numerous definitions of leadership,
influencing others is a common theme of the definitions. Hilgert and Haimann (1991)
defined leadership simply as the ability to guide and influence the opinions, attitudes,
and behavior of others (pp. 16-17). Gulley (1960) proposed that leadership is
influencing others within a particular situation and social context in a way that induces
them to follow, be modified, or to be directed (p. 174).
Other definitions explicitly state that leadership is goal directed. Kreitner and
Kinicki (1995) stated that leadership is influencing employees to voluntarily pursue
organizational goals (p. 428). Stogdill (1974) defined leadership as the process of
influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and goal
achievement (p. 57). Nahavandis (1997) and Desslers (1995) definitions of a leader
strongly support the idea that leadership is goal directed. Nahavandi (1997) defined a
leader as any person who influences individuals and groups within an organization,
helps them in the establishment of goals, and guides them toward achievement of those
goals, thereby allowing them to be effective (p. 4). Dessler (1995) stated leadership
occurs whenever one person influences another to work toward some predetermined
objective (p. 364).
Jago (1982) defined leadership in terms of both process and property:
The process of leadership is the use of non-coercive influence to direct and
coordinate the activities of the members of an organized group toward the
accomplishment of group objectives. As a property, leadership is the set


15
Effectiveness
Effectiveness refers to a leaders ability to meet the job-related needs of the
followers and promote productivity within the department. This capacity also includes
the leaders ability to make contributions to the entire organization while representing the
followers interests to the senior leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1995).
Full Range of Leadership Model
The Full Range of Leadership model is a leadership model proposed by Bass and
Avolio (1997) developed from Bass (1985) transformational leadership theory. It
includes elements of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-
faire or non-leadership behaviors.
Idealized Influence
Idealized influence is a leadership behavior that result in leaders as role models.
These leaders are seen as courageous, visionary, value driven and as change agents.
They are admired, respected and trusted. Here the leader is viewed as having high moral
standards and uses power only when necessary. This leader provides consistency and is
seen as a risk taker (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994).
Individualized Consideration
Individualized consideration is a leadership behavior that significantly contributes
to the subordinates achieving their fullest potential (Bass, 1998). Leaders that exhibit this
behavior develop subordinates through coaching, mentoring, and providing feedback
(Bass & Avolio, 1994).


Ill
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational
leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 16, 319-333.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: moral stages and idea of
justice. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Komives, S. R. (1991). The relationship of same- and cross-gender work pairs to staff
performance and supervisor leadership in residence hall units. Sex Roles 24, 355-
363.
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (1995). Organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Leithwood, K. A., Tomlinson, D & Genge, M. (1996). Transformational school
leadership. In K. A. Leithwood (Ed.), International handbook on educational
leadership and administration (pp. 785-840). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Leonard, E. A. (1956). Origins of personnel services in American higher education.
Minneapolis, MN: The Jones Press, Inc.
Lewin, K. U., Lippitt, R & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271 -
299.
Lowe, K. B Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the
literature. Leadership Quarterly 7, 385-425.
Lucas, A. F. (2000). A teamwork approach to change in the academic department.
In A. F. Lucas (Ed.), Leading academic change (pp. 7-32). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Lucas, C. J. (1994). American higher education: A history. NY: St. Martins Press.
Maher, K. J. (1997). Gender-related stereotypes of transformational and transactional
leadership. Sex Roles 37, 209-225.
Malaney, G.D., & Osit, C. J. (1998). Continuous quality improvement in student affairs:
A survey of staff opinions on the work environment. NASPA Journal 35(4), 318-
330.
Mannheim, B. F., Rim, Y., & Grinberg, G. (1967). Instrumental status of supervisors as
related to workers' perceptions and expectations. Human Relations, 20, 387-397.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.


88
the outcome variables of leader effectiveness, willingness to exert extra effort, and
satisfaction with the leader than the model would have predicted.
The results have implications for student affairs since using effective leadership
practices improves the work experience of subordinates (Daft, 1999; Fiedler, 1974;
Hersey & Blanchard, 1988; Nahavandi,1997; Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Stogdill, 1974).
Employee satisfaction has been found to be a key indicator of the total quality of an
organization, and low employee moral negatively impacts many areas of an organization
(Tuttle, 1994). Malaney and Osit (1998) indicated that low student affairs staff moral
will spill over into the staffs work with students, producing student dissatisfaction with
the student affairs staff. Since professional student affair staff members within a dean of
students office are often on the front lines, interacting with students on a daily basis, their
satisfaction with their dean is a key variable for providing high quality services to
students.
Deans of students" professional staff members willingness to exert extra effort is
also a key component of an effective dean of students office. Long hours and stressful
conditions are common characteristics of student affairs work (Barr, 1990; Carpenter,
1990). Professional staff members who are willing to exert extra effort are more likely to
effectively meet the challenges associated with student affairs work and increase the
organizational quality of the office. Having professional staff members willing to exert
extra effort is also important to the productivity of a dean of students office at a time
when state legislatures are demanding that institutions be more cost-effective and rely
less on state support (Amone, 2004).


83
transactional leadership behavior of contingent reward was also significant at the p < .05
level, as was laissez-faire leadership.
The significant predictive value of idealized influence-attributed, idealized
influence-behavior, contingent reward, and laissez-faire leadership was seen in the in the
all-possible subsets regression. For the four-behavior model these components were the
best predictor of satisfaction with the leader with an adjusted R2 of .789. The only model
with a higher adjusted R was the full nine-behavior model. For the one-behavior model,
idealized influence-attributed was the best predictor of satisfaction with the leader with
an adjusted R of .719. For the two-behavior model, idealized influence-attributed and
laissez-faire behavior were the best predictors of satisfaction with the leader with an
adjusted R2 of .752. Idealized influence-attributed, idealized influence-behavior, and
laissez-faire comprised the best three-behavior model with an R2 of .778.
The findings of the full and reduced model regression and the all-possible subsets
regression indicate that for the outcome variable of satisfaction with the leader, the results
were closer to what the Full Range of Leadership model would predict than the findings
for leader effectiveness. The transactional behavior of contingent reward was found to be
a significant predictor, but it was not as strong as predictor as it was for leader
effectiveness. The transformational leadership behaviors of idealized influence-attributed
and idealized influence-behavior, were stronger predictors than contingent reward and for
the standard multiple regression with the composite independent variables, transactional
leadership was not a significant predictor.
The strong predictive value of the idealized influence components of
transformational leadership for satisfaction with the leader is consistent with Avolio,


79
affairs division. These functions include units such as financial aid, services for students
with disabilities, and judicial affairs, which require the professional staff members within
the unit to have a high degree of knowledge and expertise in that particular area.
Therefore, a dean of students at a public research institution is typically supervising
individuals that have power and information within a specific area of responsibility.
Leader Effectiveness as Measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
The initial analysis for examining whether there was a relationship between the
transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-
faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff
members' perception of leader effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short) was done using SAS and SPSS standard regression.
The analysis revealed that the model significantly predicted leader effectiveness with the
composite independent variables accounting for 81.2% of the variance for leadership
effectiveness. For leader effectiveness, all three of the variables were significant at the p
< .05 level. However, transformational leadership was the strongest predictor of leader
effectiveness with a standardized regression coefficient of .651 compared to a
standardized regression coefficient for transactional leadership of. 159. Therefore, the
composite variable of transformational leadership was a stronger contributor to the model
in predicting leader effectiveness than the composite variable of transactional leadership.
There was a significant negative relationship between laissez-faire behavior and
leadership effectiveness with laissez-faire leadership having a standardized regression
coefficient of-.414 and a semipartial correlation of -.305. This indicates that deans who
frequently exhibit laissez-faire leadership behaviors are more likely to be perceived as


Response Rates 54
Demographic Information 54
Research Question 1 55
Research Question 2 57
Research Question 3 61
Research Question 4 65
Research Question 5 70
Summary 72
5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 74
Summary and Discussion of Findings 75
Leadership Behaviors Exhibited by Deans of Students 77
Leader Effectiveness as Measured by the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 79
Satisfaction with the Leader as Measured by
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 81
Willingness to Exert Extra Effort as Measured by
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 84
Gender and Perception of Leadership Style 86
Implications for Student Affairs 87
Recommendations for Future Research 89
APPENDIX
A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APROVAL 91
B MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE PERMISSION 93
C INFORMATION LETTER FOR DEANS OF STUDENTS 95
D INFORMATION LETTER FOR PARTICIPANTS 97
E INFORMED CONSENT FORM 99
F DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARTICIPANTS 101
G MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE ITEMS 103
REFERENCE LIST 105
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 115
IV


Consent Form
A study of leadership behaviors among deans of students at public research universities in the
southeast is being conducted by a doctoral candidate in the Department of Educational Leadership,
Policy, and Foundations at the University of Florida. The purpose of the study is to examine the
leadership behaviors exhibited by deans of students at public research universities in the southeast using
Bass and Avolios "Full Range of Leadership" model.
Plans for Participation
Your participation will involve the completion of 1 questionnaire and a demographic information
sheet. The questionnaire will be used to collect information on your perceptions pertaining to the
leadership style of the supervisor of your office (Dean of Students, Dean of Student Life, Director of
Student Life, etc.). Completion of the demographic information sheet and the questionnaire will require
approximately 15 minutes of your time.
Voluntary Participation 'Confidentiality
Your participation in this study is voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. I foresee no risks
or discomforts to you by involving yourself in this study. There is no direct benefit to you for
participating in this study. Your responses to the questionnaire will be kept in the strictest confidence and
the information gathered will be used for research purposes only. Your identity will be kept confidential
to the extent provided by law. The results of the study will be reported in the aggregate so that no
individual can be identified. All instruments will be coded by number and your name will not appear on
the questionnaire or demographic information sheet.
Should you choose to participate, please sign below and return this form with the completed
demographic information sheet and the completed questionnaire in the enclosed postage-paid reply
envelope. You may withdraw your consent at any time without penalty.
Authorization: I, have read the procedure described
above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and 1 have received a copy of this description. 1
am aware that my responses will remain confidential and that I may decline to participate at any time.
Signature
Date
Further information may be obtained by contacting:
Any questions or concerns about your rights as
a participant in this study can be directed to:
UF 1RB Office
Box 112250
Gainesville, FL32611-2250
(352) 392-0433
£r
200g> -U
-24H
i
Rick Barth
339 NW 50th Blvd.
Gainesville, FL 32607
(H): 352-256-3147
(0): 352-392-1265
(Fax): 352-392-7301
E-Mail: rbarth 1 'o'mac.com
Supervisor Information:
Dr. Arthur Sandecn
Professor, Educational Leadership
200-E Norman Hall
POBox 117049
Gainesville, FL 32611-7049
Phone:392-2391 ext. 284
100


32
Management-by-exception is defined by Bass (1998) as a corrective transaction
and occurs when a leader intervenes to make a correction only when something has gone
wrong or a mistake has been made (p. 7). Management-by-exception can either be active
or passive. Management-by-exception active is characterized by the leader actively
watching for deviations from the norm, and taking action when irregularities occur (Bass
& Avolio, 1997). Management-by-exception passive is characterized by the leader
intervening only after a correction is needed. There is no active monitoring for deviations
from the norm (Bass & Avolio, 1997).
Laissez-Faire Leadership
Laissez-faire leadership is the third classification of leadership in the Full Range
of Leadership Model and was added to address behaviors that indicate a non-transaction
of leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Laissez-faire leadership is the most inactive form
of leadership and is characterized by the leader avoiding decisions and not using his or
her authority. Bass (1998) states that Laissez-Faire behavior is the avoidance or absence
of leadership and is, by definition, most inactive, as well as the most ineffective
according to almost all research on style (p. 7).
The Augmentation Effect of Transformational Leadership
The Full Range of Leadership Model predicts that transformational leadership
will add to the effectiveness of transactional leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997; Bass,
1998). Although effective leaders are both transformational and transactional, Bass
(1985, 1998) states that transformational leadership augments transactional leadership in
predicting leadership behavior effects on the outcome variables of subordinate
willingness to exert extra effort, perception of leader effectiveness, and satisfaction with


18
the leader offers incentives and rewards in exchange for satisfaction of lower order needs
(Bass, 1985).
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is leadership based on mutual stimulation and shared
vision, going beyond self-interest exchanges (Bass, 1985, 1998). Transformational
leaders broaden and elevate the interest of followers and have a transforming effect.
They motivate their followers and seek to fulfill their higher order needs (Bass, 1985).
Delimitations and Assumptions
For the purpose of this study, the following delimitations, limitations, and
assumptions apply:
Delimitations
1. This study is delimited to deans of students at public research universities that
(a) are classified as either Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive or
Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive by the 2000 Carnegie Classification
(Carnegie Foundation, 2000), (b) employ the dean of students title to
recognize a student affairs professional staff member that is not the chief
student affairs officer, and (c) are located in the Southeastern states of
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Therefore, it is not
intended to be reflective of the leadership profiles of deans of students at
large.
2. The study is delimited to the leadership factors developed by Bass (1998) of
Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation,
Individualized Consideration, Contingent Reward, Management-by-
Exception. and Laissez-Faire.
3. This study will examine the perceptions of subordinates of deans of students
regarding transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership
behaviors. It will not examine the perceptions of deans of students' peers or
supervisors.


66
members willingness to exert extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short).
The initial analysis was performed between the dependent variable (willingness to
exert extra effort) and the composite independent variables of transformational
leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership using standard multiple
regression analysis. The analysis was performed using both SAS Regression and SPSS
Regression. Further analyses were conducted using SAS multiple regression for full and
reduced models and all possible subsets.
The full and reduced model regression and the all possible subsets regression
focused on the components in the MLQ that compose the composite independent
variables of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire
leadership. The transformational leadership section of the MLQ is composed of five
scales of four items each. The component behaviors for transformational leadership are
idealized influence-attributed (II-A), idealized influence-behavior (II-B), inspirational
motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS), and individualized consideration (IC). The
transactional leadership section of the MLQ is composed of three scales of four items
each. The component behaviors for transactional leadership are contingent reward (CR),
management-by-exception active (MBE-A), and management-by-exception passive
(MBE-P). The laissez-faire (LF) leadership section of the MLQ is a single scale with
four items.
Assumptions were tested by examining normal probability plots of residuals and
scatter diagrams of residuals versus predicted residuals. No violations of normality,


113
Robillard, D. Jr. (2000). Toward a definition of deaning. In D. Robillard, Jr. (Ed.), New
directions for community colleges: No. 109. Dimensions of managing academic
affairs in the community college (pp. 3-8). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rogers, J. L. (1996). Leadership. In S. R. Komives, & D. B. Woodard, Jr. (Eds.),
Student services: A handbook for the profession (3rd ed., pp. 299-319). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ross, S. M, & Offerman, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of
personality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1078-1086.
Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens, GA:
University of Georgia Press.
Sandeen, A. (1996). Organization, functions, and standards of practice. In S. R.
Komives & D. B. Woodard, Jr. (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the
profession (3rd ed., pp. 435-457). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schroeder, C. C. (1999). Forging educational partnerships that advance student learning.
In G. S. Blimling, E. J. Whitt. & Associates (Eds.), Good practice in student
affairs: Principles to foster student learning (pp. 133-156). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schwartz, R. A. (1997). How deans of women became men. Review of Higher Education,
20, 419-436.
Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and
consideration. Journal of Management, 16, 693-703.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1991). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Shea, C. M & Howell, J. M. (1999). Charismatic leadership and task feedback: A
laboratory study of their effects on self-efficacy and task performance. Leadership
Quarterly, 10, 375-396.
Smith, P. (1990). Killing the spirit: Higher education in America. New York: Penguin
Books.
Sosik, J. J. (1997). Effects of transformational leadership and anonymity on idea
generation in computer-mediated groups. Group and Organization Management,
22, 460-487.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the
Literature. Journal of Psychology, 2, 535-571.


84
Bass, and Jungs (1999) findings on the component behaviors of the Full Range of
Leadership model. Idealized influence is a charismatic type of leadership that builds
followers identification with the leader and the leader's vision. It is characterized by the
leader establishing himself or herself as role model through exhibiting high ethical
standards and it energizes followers as well as providing them with a clear sense of
purpose (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999).
Willingness to Exert Extra Effort as Measured by the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire
The initial analysis for examining whether there was a relationship between the
transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-
faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff
members willingness to exert extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short) was done using SAS and SPSS standard regression.
The analysis revealed that the model significantly predicted willingness to exert extra
effort with the composite independent variables accounting for 73.5% of the variance for
willingness to exert extra effort. All three of the independent variables were significant
at the p < .05 level. However, transformational leadership was the strongest predictor of
willingness to exert extra effort with a standardized regression coefficient of .699
compared to a standardized regression coefficient for transactional leadership of .158.
Therefore, the composite variable of transformational leadership is a stronger contributor
to the model in predicting willingness to exert extra effort than the composite variable of
transactional leadership.
There was a significant negative relationship between laissez-faire behavior and
willingness to exert extra effort w ith laissez-faire leadership having a standardized


CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership behaviors of deans of
students at public research universities in the southeast using Bass and Avolios (1997)
Full Range of Leadership model. The study will investigate the relationship between
transformational, transactional, and laissez-fair leadership behaviors of the deans and the
outcome variables of subordinate satisfaction with the leader, subordinate perception of
leadership effectiveness, and subordinate willingness to exert extra effort.
Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:
1. To what extent do deans of students exhibit transformational, transactional, and
laissez-fair leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5X-Short)?
2. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' perception of leader
effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater
Form (5X-Short)?
3. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members satisfaction with
their leader as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
4. Is there a relationship between the transformational leadership behavior, the
transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership behavior of deans
of students and their subordinate professional staff members' willingness to exert
extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form
(5X-Short)?
5. Is there a relationship between gender and the transformational leadership
behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-faire leadership
20


87
found there were no differences between men and women leaders in displaying
transformational behaviors.
Other studies have found that women tend to be more transformational than their
male counterparts (Bass, 1999). Bass (1999) speculated that the findings from studies
that found women tend to be more transformational examined organizations dominated
by males. In these situations, women may have had to be better leaders than their male
counterparts to attain the same leadership positions. Bass (1999) stated that more studies
needed to be done to examine what happens when women are in the majority. For this
study, female deans were a slight majority at 53.9%. Therefore, this study may indicate
that that the finding of previous research that females are more transformational does not
hold true when women are in the majority.
Implications for Student Affairs
The results of this study suggest that professional staff members working within a
dean of students office, or its equivalent, are more willing to exert extra effort, have
higher levels of satisfaction with the dean of students, and view the deans leadership as
more effective when the dean utilizes transformational leadership behaviors more
frequently than transactional leadership behaviors. While the study may not be entirely
conclusive, the results are consistent with the theoretical prediction of Bass and Avolios
(1997) Full Range of Leadership model. The model predicts that leaders who are more
transformational and less transactional are more effective as leaders and more satisfying
to their followers (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Where the results differ from the theoretical
prediction of the model is on the predictive value of the transactional behavior of
contingent reward. The findings indicate that contingent reward is a stronger predictor of


108
Carless, S. A. (1998). Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination
of superior leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex Roles, 39, 887-902.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2000). The Carnegie
classification of institutions of higher education. Retrieved October 9, 2002, from:
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classification/CIHE2000/
classification2000.htm
Carpenter, D. S. (1990). Developmental concerns in moving toward personal and
professional competence. In D. D. Coleman & J. E. Johnson (Eds.), The new
professional: A resource guide for new student affairs professionals and their
supervisors (pp. 1-60). Washington. DC: National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators.
Chemers, M. M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Cohen, A. M. (1998). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence and growth
of the contemporary system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crookston, B. (1974). The nomenclature dilemma: Titles of student affairs officers at
NASPA institutions. NASPA Journal, 77(3), 3-6.
Daft, R. L. (1999). Leadership theory and practice. Orlando, FL: The Dry den Press.
Deegan, W. L. (1981). Managing student affairs programs: Methods, models, and
muddles. Palm Springs, CA: ETC Publications.
Dinniman, A. E. (1977). Observations on the evolution of the student affairs deanship.
NASPA Journal, 74(4), 2-9.
Dowton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the revolutionary
process. New York: The Free Press.
Dessler, G. (1995). Managing organizations in an era of change. Orlando, FL: The
Dryden Press.
Dressel. P. L. (1981). Administrative leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Druskat, V. U. (1994). Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional
leadership in the Roman Catholic Church. Leadership Quarterly 5, 99-119.


47
Table 3-1 Organizational Samples Used in Validation and Cross Validation Analysis of
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Description of Validation Samples
Description of Cross-Validation Samples
Set
N
Set
N
1. Undergraduate Students
254
1. Business Organizations in U.S.
215
(American and Taiwanese)
2. Political Organization in U.S.
428
2. Undergraduate Students (American)
162
3. Business Organizations in U.S.
549
3. Nursing Schools in U.S.
45
4. Fire Department in U.S.
325
4. U.S. Government Research
Organization
66
5. Not-for-Profit Government
Organization
189
5. Business Organizations in U.S.
457
6. Business Organizations in U.S.
320
7. College Educators in Nursing
School in U.S.
475
8. U.S. Army Organization
202
9. Oil Platforms Offshore from
Scotland
99
Note. Reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, MIND GARDEN, Inc., 1690 Woodside Road
#202, Redwood City, CA 90461 USA www.mindgarden.com from the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire for Research by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J Avolio. Copyright 1995, 2000 by Bernard M
Bass and Bruce J Avolio. All rights reserved. Further reproduction is prohibited without Publishers written
permission.
each of the leadership factors and the outcome scales range from .74 to .94 for the
validation sample and .73 to .93 in the cross validation sample (Bass & Avolio, 1997).
The scales' reliabilities are generally high, exceeding standard cut-offs for internal
consistency recommended in the literature (Alovio, Bass, & Jung, 1995).
Bass and Avolio (1997) used confirmatory factor analysis to test the convergent and
discriminant validity of the MLQ Form 5X scales. Bass and Avolio (1997) state that
the confirmatory factor analysis tests were specifically run to determine whether the data
collected from the validation and cross-validation sample sets confirmed the nine-factor
model proposed by Avolio and Bass (1991). Table 3-3 shows the comparison of the
Goodness of Fit (GFI), the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), the Root Mean


57
Table 4-3 Deans of Students: Leadership Behaviors
Leadership Behavior Type
Behavior
M
SD
Min.
Max.
Transformational
2.76
.67
0.80
4.00
Inspirational
Motivation
2.94
.66
1.00
4.00
Idealized Influence
Attributed
2.82
.89
0.00
4.00
Idealized Influence
Behavior
2.76
.77
1.00
4.00
Individualized
Consideration
2.66
.69
0.50
4.00
Intellectual
Stimulation
2.61
.78
1.00
4.00
Transactional
1.68
.40
0.67
2.58
Contingent
Reward
2.64
.69
0.75
4.00
Management-by-
Exception
Passive
1.24
.84
0.00
3.00
Management-by-
Exception
Active
1.15
.76
0.00
3.00
Laissez-Faire
Laissez-Faire
.91
.84
0.00
3.50
Note, n = 96.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 examined whether there was a relationship between the
transformational leadership behavior, the transactional leadership behavior, or the laissez-
faire leadership behavior of deans of students and their subordinate professional staff


85
regression coefficient of -.283 and a semipartial correlation of -.208. This indicates that
deans who frequently exhibit laissez-faire leadership behaviors are less likely to have
subordinates that are willing to exert extra effort than deans that rarely display such
behavior.
Further analyses were performed on the outcome variable of willingness to exert
extra effort using SAS full and reduced model regression and SAS all possible subsets
regression. These analyses used the component behaviors of transformational and
transactional leadership to examine which component behaviors were having the
strongest influence on predicting subordinate willingness to exert extra effort. The full
and reduced model regression did find that the transformational leadership components
significantly added to the predictive accuracy for willingness to exert extra effort.
Adding the transformational components to the model increased R2 by 16.3%, and of the
variance in willingness to exert extra effort that was not associated with transactional and
laissez-faire leadership, 77.5% was associated with the transformational leadership
behaviors. The transformational leadership behavior components that were found to be
significant in the full model at the p < .05 level, were idealized influence-attributed,
idealized influence-behavior, and individualized consideration. The transactional
leadership behavior of contingent reward was also significant at the p < .05 level, as was
laissez-faire leadership.
The predictive value of individualized consideration, idealized influence-
attributed, idealized influence-behavior, contingent reward, and laissez-faire was seen in
the all-possible subsets regression. For the five-behavior model, these components were
the best predictors of willingness to exert extra effort with an adjusted R2 of .763. The


17
ways work and the followers continue to work in familiar patterns as long as performance
goals are met (Hater & Bass, 1988).
Management-by-Exception (Passive)
Management-by-exception (passive) is a leadership behavior in which the leader
only takes actions after deviations and irregularities are evident (Hartog, van Muijen, &
Koopman, 1997). The leader waits for problems to materialize prior to any intervention
(Hater & Bass, 1988).
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is a measurement instrument
developed by Bass and associates to identify and measure (a) the framework of
leadership factors included in Bass and Avolios Lull Range of Leadership Development
model, and (b) a set of three leadership outcomes (follower extra effort, leader
effectiveness, follower satisfaction with the leaders methods) that occur as a result of
leader behavior (Bass & Avolio, 1997).
Professional Staff
Professional staff are fulltime student affairs practitioners who have responsibility
for one or more outside-the-classroom services or programs at a post-secondary
institution. Professional staff typically have at least a masters degree in student affairs,
counseling, or higher education administration and are a member of a professional
association related to student affairs (Winston & Miller, 1991).
Transactional Leadership
Transactional leadership is leadership based on the exchange between leader and
follower (Bums, 1978). It is implemented through a series of implicit bargains in which


110
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of
consolidated-business-unit-performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891 -
902.
Howell, J. M & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 43, 243-269.
Howell, J. M & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technology innovation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317-341.
Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership
research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 88-102.
Hunt, J. G. & Liebscher, V. K. (1973). Leadership preference, leadership behavior, and
employee satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 59-
77.
Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management
Science, 28, 315-336.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL7: Users reference guide. Mooresville,
IN: Scientific Software International.
Jung, D. L, & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers cultural
orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of
Management Review 42, 208-228.
Keller. K. H. (1990). Education and the public research university. In R. Bjomson & M.
R. Waldman (Eds.), The university of the future. Columbus, OH: The Center for
Comparative studies.
Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and
development project groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489-501.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Harcourt Brace
College Publishers.
Kerr, C. (1991). The great transformation in higher education, 1960-1980. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and
measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375-403.


APPENDIX F
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARTICIPANTS


APPENDIX G
MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE ITEMS


54
sample who had not returned the survey packet materials. Twenty-four days after the
second mailing, a third and final packet was mailed to the remaining non-respondents.
Response Rates
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5x-Short) was distributed
as a self-administered survey mailed to 137 professional staff members in the dean of
students office at the 38 institutions included in the study. The initial mailing and the two
reminder mailings resulted in 96 surveys being returned for a response rate of 70%.
Included in the calculation of the 70% response rate were the professional staff members
at seven institutions included in the study that did not return surveys for their respective
institutions. Therefore, while there were 38 institutions included in the study, the number
of deans evaluated was 31.
Demographic Information
The demographic information sheet was designed to obtain information from the
respondents on both the dean of students and the respondent in the areas of gender, age,
and education level. Information was also collected on the number of years the dean of
students had been in the dean position, the number of years the respondent had been in
student affairs, and the number of years that the respondent had worked with their current
dean. The demographic information sheet can be found in Appendix F.
The age demographic responses were divided into five categories. Table
4-1 presents the distribution of the respondents and deans with respect to age. The
majority of the respondents were in the 30s age group category and the majority of the
deans were in the 40s age group category. The deans tended to be in their 40s or older
and the respondents tended to be in their 40s or younger.


APPENDIX E
INFORMED CONSENT FORM


2
college funding and by discouraging public support for higher education, [Dartmouth]
probably helped to check the development of state universities for half a century (p.
211).
While the attempts at establishing state institutions of higher education were
premature in terms of public acceptance and ready implementation at the beginning of the
19th century, the last half of the 19th century was a time when the countrys industrialized
society was facing increasingly complex problems and deficiencies that would eventually
lead to the widespread development of public higher education (Rudolph, 1990;
Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). There was an increasing need for highly trained professionals
in areas such as engineering, agriculture, public health, forestry, and nursing, but the
professional schools of the modem university did not exist (Bonnen. 1998). There was
also a growing frustration with the perceived unresponsiveness of colleges, mostly
private, that were providing a classical education and were unwilling to address societys
changing needs (Bonnen, 1998). At the same time, a fear arose that the American
dream of unlimited opportunities was being threatened by industrialization and the
growing economic inequality it was causing. The lack of access to the skills and practical
education necessary for a better life was viewed as a serious threat to the survival of the
middle class (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Bonnen, 1998).
Part of the response to these concerns was the land-grant idea, which was
eventually expressed in the 1862 Morrill Land Grant Act and the second land-grant act of
1890 (Bonnen, 1998). The land-grant idea was to provide federal and state support for
the development of institutions of higher education devoted to science and education in
the service of society by (a) educating and training professionals for the increasingly


APPENDIX B
MULTIFACTOR LEADESHIP QUESTIONNAIRE PERMISSION


64
higher scores on the transformational leadership component behaviors. Therefore, a
multiple regression analysis using full and reduced models was calculated to examine the
extent to which the transformational leadership component behaviors added to the
predictive accuracy for the dependent variable of satisfaction with the leader when they
were added to the transactional component behaviors and laissez-faire behavior.
The transformational leadership components significantly added to the predictive
accuracy for the dependent variable of satisfaction with the leader when they were added
to the components for transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership behavior. The
F-value was calculated at 13.69 with p < .05 and R2 increased by 15.7% when the
transformational components were added to the reduced model. In addition, it was found
that of the variance in satisfaction with the leader that was not associated with
transactional and laissez-faire leadership, 79.6% was associated with the transformational
leadership behaviors. Table 4-8 displays the unstandardized regression coefficients (B),
the standard errors (SE), the observed t values (t), and the significance levels (p) for the
component behaviors in the reduced model and the full model.
The component behaviors were analyzed using an all-possible subsets regression
with a R selection method to determine which groups of behaviors were the best
predictors of satisfaction with the leader. Table 4-9 displays the R2 and the adjusted R2
for the best one-behavior model through the model that includes all nine behaviors. The
highest adjusted R" was .849 for the full nine-behavior model. The second highest
adjusted R2 was .789 for both the four-behavior (II-A, II-B, CR, LF) and five-behavior
(II-A, II-B, IM, CR, LF) models.


41
Sandeen (1996) reports that the contemporary dean of students is often
responsible for several of the traditional student affairs functions, responds to student
crises, enforces the institutions community standards, and responds to the general
concerns of students, faculty, staff, parents, and community members (p. 444). A
review of the web sites for National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges member institutions in the Southeast that employ the dean of students title
indicate that the common student affairs functions that are supervised by the dean of
students include judicial affairs, Greek life, orientation and first-year programs,
leadership development, disability services, student organizations and activities, and
student government. Other functions that were not as common but were the
responsibility of several of the deans of students include withdrawals, parent programs,
service learning, international student services, housing and residence life, multicultural
affairs, and gender issues.


89
Through improving the work experience of their professional staff members and
increasing their professional staff members willingness to exert extra effort, deans of
students that employ a transformational leadership style can improve the student affairs
program at their institutions. Bass and Avolio (1998) found that transformational
leadership can be developed within individuals through a leadership development
program they refer to as the Full Range of Leadership Development. It is a
comprehensive training program that works with participants in improving their
leadership behavior profile and with dealing with the obstacles to changing their
leadership behavior (Bass and Avolio, 1998). This type of leadership development
program may assist deans of students in becoming more transformational in their
leadership, which would improve the work experience of their professional staff
members. Therefore, this type of leadership program could be developed for deans of
students at public research institutions.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings of this study support the existence of the basic theoretical prediction
of Bass and Avolios (1997) Full Range of Leadership model within the dean of students
offices at public research universities. However, the study is not conclusive and suggests
a number of areas for future research.
1. The current study was limited to deans of students at public research
universities in the southeast. Before the findings can be generalized to the
dean of students population as a whole, it is recommended that the study be
duplicated with institutions in other Carnegie Classifications, with private
institutions, and with institutions in other parts of the country.
2. A key to improving leadership effectiveness is identifying characteristics of
subordinates, organizational environment, and work tasks that neutralize or
enhance leadership behaviors (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Therefore, it is


13
Bass (1998), in recognizing that variables related to subordinate, task, and
organizational characteristics can affect the relationships between particular leader
behaviors and subordinate criterion variables, stated that situational contingencies do
make a difference. However, Bass (1998) noted that over fifteen years of research
indicates that situational contingencies do not override the general finding that
transformational leadership behaviors are significantly and positively related to outcomes
of willingness of followers to exert extra effort, a perception that the leaders leadership
behavior is effective, and an overall sense of satisfaction with the leader on the part of the
followers. Bass (1998) argues that research has indicated that transformational leadership
is more effective than constructive transactions, which are more effective than corrective
transactions, regardless of situational contingencies.
This study investigated whether deans of students at public research universities
in the southeast exhibit transformational leadership behaviors, and if so, whether this
leadership style enhanced employee perceptions of extra effort, leadership effectiveness,
and follower satisfaction with leaders methods.
Definition of Terms
Specific terms used in this study are defined below.
Contingent Reward
Contingent reward is a transactional leadership behavior that rewards followers
for attaining specific performance levels. The leader utilizes primarily extrinsic
motivators to reward followers contingent upon effort and performance level achieved.


LIST OF TABLES
Table page
3-1 Organizational Samples Used in Validation and Cross
Validation Analysis of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 47
3-2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among
MLQ Factor Scores 48
3-3 Comparison of Overall Fit Measures Among Several Factors Model 49
4-1 Summary of Respondents and Deans Age Distribution 55
4-2 Summary of Educational Level for Deans and Respondents 55
4-3 Deans of Students: Leadership Behaviors 57
4-4 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Leader Effectiveness 59
4-5 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Leader
Effectiveness Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors 61
4-6 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Leader Effectiveness 61
4-7 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Satisfaction with the Leader 63
4-8 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Satisfaction
with the Leader Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors 65
4-9 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Satisfaction
with the Leader 65
4-10 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Willingness to Exert Extra Effort 68
4-11 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Willingness
to Exert Extra Effort Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors 69
v


UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA
Office of the Vice President
for Student Affairs
155 Tigert Hall
POBox 113250
Gainesville, FL 32611-3250
(352) 392-1265
April 27, 2003
Dear:
1 am a doctoral candidate in the Educational Leadership Program at the University of
Florida conducting research to examine leadership behaviors among deans of students at
public research universities in the southeast. Despite the important leadership role that
deans of students fill, little is known about the leadership behaviors of deans of students
as perceived by their professional staff members.
I am sending you this letter to inform you that staff members within your area of
supervision will be contacted and asked to participate in the study. Their involvement, if
they choose to participate, will consist of completing the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Rater Form (5x-Short), a demographic information sheet, and a consent
form. I have attached a copy of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for your
review.
Your staff members responses to the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire will be kept
in the strictest confidence and the results of the study will be reported in the aggregate so
that no individual or institution can be identified.
If you have any questions about the research, please contact me at (352) 392-1265 or
through e-mail at rbartlu idl.edu. If you wish to speak to my advisor. Dr. Art Sandeen,
he can be reached at (352) 392-2391 or through e-mail at sandeenfr; ufl.edu.
Sincerely,
Rick Barth
Doctoral Candidate
Interim Assoc. Vice President
Enclosure
An Fqual Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution
96


77
leadership behaviors. Conclusions drawn from the results of this study are discussed in
relation to the research questions that served as the basis for the study.
Leadership Behaviors Exhibited by Deans of Students
The findings suggest that deans of students at public research universities in the
southeast, as a group, exhibited transformational behaviors more frequently than
transactional behaviors, which they displayed more frequently than laissez-faire
leadership behaviors. The mean scores for deans of students leadership behavior
presented in Table 4-3 indicate that deans of students exhibited transformational
leadership fairly often 2.76, SD = .67), transactional leadership sometimes (M
1.68, SD = .40), and laissez-faire leadership once in a while (M= 0.91, SD = .84).
Therefore, the composite independent variables followed the Full Range of Leadership
model optimal profile which calls for transformational leadership behaviors to be
displayed more frequently than transactional leadership behaviors, which should be
displayed more frequently than laissez-faire leadership behavior (Bass & Avolio, 1997).
However, the mean scores for the component behaviors of the composite independent
variables did not exactly match the optimal profile.
The mean scores for the component behaviors of the composite independent
variables indicate that one of the transactional behaviors, contingent reward (M= 2.64,
SD = .69), was exhibited more than the transformational behavior of intellectual
stimulation (M= 2.61, SD = .78). While this finding prevents an exact match with the
optimal leadership profile proposed by Bass and Avolio (1997), it is not necessarily a
negative finding. Research on transformational leadership indicates that the frequency
with which transformational and transactional leadership behaviors emerge and are


TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES v
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 8
Theoretical Background 9
Definition of Terms 13
Delimitations and Assumptions 18
Organization of the Study 19
2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 20
Definitions of Leadership 21
Theories of Leadership 22
The Full Range of Leadership Model 29
Research on Transformational Leadership 35
Contingencies and Limitations of the Full Range of Leadership Model 36
The Dean of Students 37
3 METHODOLOGY 42
Research Population 43
The Instrument 44
Reliability and Validity 46
Data Collection 49
Data Analysis 50
Human Subjects 51
4 ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA 52
Survey Responses 53
iii


40
Student Personnel Point of View (Garland, 1985; Fenske. 1989; Rentz, 1996; Caple,
1998). The reports emphasized the philosophical basis for student personnel work and
provided the foundation and assumptions that many professionals believed to represent
the spirit of the profession (Garland, 1985; Rentz, 1996).
While the period after World War II was a time of expansion for student affairs as
a profession, Schwartz (1997) reports that it was not a good period for deans of women.
He argues that in the rush to return to normalcy and to reward men returning from the
war, the role women had played in the success of the student personnel movement was
largely ignored. While offices of the dean of men were often expanded to become dean
for student personnel, dean of students, and vice-presidents for student personnel
services deans of women were given lesser positions, dismissed, or allowed to retire
quietly (Schwartz, 1997, p. 433).
From 1950 to 1972, the title dean of students was the most frequently used title
to designate the chief student affairs officer (CSAO). However, it was during this period
that a shift to the designation of vice president was emerging. By 1972, 18% of the
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators member institutions were
using the title of vice president to designate their CSAO (Crookston, 1974). The use of
the vice president title continued to increase through the 1970s and 1980s becoming the
preferred designation of the chief student affairs officer at public universities (Ambler,
1993). While the use of the dean of students title as designating the CSAO
fell from favor at public institutions, many public universities retained the title to
designate a major student affairs officer who has responsibility for many of the aspects of
student life and who reports directly to the CSAO (Ambler, 1993).


35
Research on Transformational Leadership
A review of the literature on transformational leadership indicates that it has a
consistent, reliable, and positive relationship to effectiveness measures, whether
organizationally based or subjectively determined as predicted by Bass (1985) in the
development of his theory. The empirical work on transformational leadership covers a
wide area, and applies the concepts in a number of different disciplines and settings.
Transformational leadership has been found to have a substantive and significant
relationship on organizational and group effectiveness (Avolio, Howell, & Sosik, 1999;
Avolio, Waldman, & Einstein, 1988; Barling, Weber, & Kelloway 1996; Geyer &
Steyrer, 1998; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Jung & Avolio, 1999; Lowe, Kroeck, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996), and perception of performance of the leader (Hater & Bass,
1988; Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass, 1993). Lowe et al. (1996), in a meta-analysis of 39
studies, found that a strong relationship exists between the transformational scales and
leadership effectiveness measures using either organizationally determined criteria or the
MLQ. Bass, Waldman, Avolio, and Bebb (1987) found transformational leadership to
have a powerful modeling effect on followers and on the organizational culture.
Transformational leadership was found to be predictive of innovation and creativity
(Howell & Higgins, 1990; Keller, 1992; Sosik, 1997), positive work attitude and product
knowledge (Yammarino et al., 1997), and followers feeling empowered (Howell &
Higgins, 1990). Furthermore, transformational leadership is predictive of satisfaction
with the leader (Barling, Weber & Kelloway, 1996; Druskat, 1994; Howell & Frost,
1989; Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Ross & Offermann, 1997), follower commitment
(Yammarino et al., 1997), organizational commitment (Barling et al., 1996; Koh et al.,


69
Table 4-11 Summary of Full and Reduced Models Regression for Willingness to
Exert Extra Effort Adding Transformational Leadership Behaviors
Behavior
B
SE
t
P
Reduced3
CR
.918
.102
9.01
.0001*
MBE-A
.071
.087
0.81
.4201
MBE-P
.146
.112
1.30
.1953
LF
-.478
.112
-4.28
.0001*
Fullb
II-A
.228
.105
2.16
.0334*
II-B
.275
.125
2.20
.0305*
IM
-.185
.112
-1.65
.1028
IS
.086
.152
0.56
.5736
IC
.477
.146
3.26
.0016*
CR
.240
.117
2.05
.0433*
MBE-A
-.006
.072
-0.09
.9297
MBE-P
.155
.091
1.71
.0914
LF
-.319
.094
-3.41
.0010*
Note.
an = 96. b = 96.
R2 = .627. bR2 = .790.
*p < .05.
The highest adjusted R2 was .772 for the seven-behavior model (II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR,
MBE-P, LF). However, the adjusted R2 for the five-behavior model (II-A, II-B, IC, CR,
LF) of .763 and the adjusted R2 for the six-behavior model (II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR. LF) of
.768 are within 1% of the seven-behavior adjusted R2.
Table 4-12 Best Predictor Model by Number of Behaviors for Willingness to Exert Extra
Effort
Number
in Model
R2
Adjusted R2
Behaviors in Model
1
.654
.650
IC
2
.727
.721
II-A, IC
3
.753
.745
II-A, IC, LF
4
.768
.757
II-A, II-B, IC, LF
5
.776
.763
II-A, II-B, IC, CR, LF
6
.782
.768
II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR, LF
7
.789
.772
II-A, II-B, IM, IC, CR. MBE-P. LF
8
.790
.770
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, IC, CR, MBE-P, LF
9
.790
.768
II-A, II-B, IM, IS, IC, CR, MBE-A, MBE-P, LF
Note, n = 96.